Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Workplace Rights

John MacDougall: What further changes to workplace rights she expects to be in place by 2007.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government will continue to find the right balance between establishing fair standards for workers and creating more jobs. As we have already announced, we will introduce regulations on age discrimination and implement the information and consultation framework, on which we published a draft for consultation yesterday. We are committed to reviewing our family-friendly package of laws in 2006.

John MacDougall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. She mentions family-friendly rights; how successful have such initiatives been, and what progress has been made on issues such as age?

Patricia Hewitt: The new law that we introduced last year, which gives parents with young children the right to request a change in their hours, has already been enormously successful. Nearly 1 million parents—about a quarter of all parents with children under six—asked for a change in their working hours. Eight out of 10 of those requests have been granted in full, and a compromise was agreed in respect of a further one in 10. That is extremely encouraging, and we now want to extend much greater choice to older workers, who all too often are locked out of the labour market. This is not about "work till you drop", as the press likes to suggest, but about "choose when you stop". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I will invite employers, employees and their unions, and others with a direct interest, to sit down with us and agree a way forward that will promote choice for older workers without imposing burdens on employers.

Andrew Mitchell: Conservative Members are enthusiastic supporters of developing the work-life balance, as I told the general secretary of the TUC when I met him recently, but unlike the right hon. Lady we recognise that it has to be paid for. Does she not understand that the plethora of directives, consultations and burdens under which British business is groaning today will be paid for in jobs, time and competitiveness?

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made it clear that they would cut public spending, the one thing of which we can be certain is that they would not pay for maternity pay and leave, and that they would not keep the rights that we have already introduced. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) shows that he simply does not understand that it is the Government and taxpayers who pay for statutory maternity pay. What is more, at the request of small businesses we compensate them for more than the cost of maternity pay, in order to help them cover the administrative costs. There are no burdens from us; instead, there are better rights for parents at work. If the Conservatives were in government, they would cut them.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that high-performance workplaces are those in which employers look very carefully at staff flexibility and make every attempt to allow staff to cope with their domestic, as well as their professional, responsibilities? Does that not reduce stress and absenteeism and mean that staff are more productive in the long term?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses, particularly public sector employers, who organise their work flexibly are increasingly finding that doing so is good not only for their employees but for their organisation. So there is a very strong business case for family-friendly working, and that is the basis on which we have introduced the law.

Technology Start-up Businesses

Archie Norman: What proposals she has to encourage technology start-up businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: The university challenge seed fund, the grant for research and development and the UK high technology fund are three ways in which the Government help technology start-ups. As a result, some 17,000 start-ups are assisted every year.

Archie Norman: Would the Minister like to comment on the report in today's edition of The Times that the Chancellor plans to cut £300 million from the DTI's business support division? Can he also confirm that flagship support for technology start-up schemes—the grant for research and development—has already been cut, that the number of grants will be reduced this year from 900 to 300, and that the waiting list for grants has already been extended from two months to five months? Does he not agree that if anything should be cut, it is the cost of running the DTI, rather than support for new start-ups?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. On grants for research and development, over the last five years the number of applicants for grants—all accepted because the criteria were met—resulted in a 17 per cent. underspend on the allocation, and in the past two years we have been able to supplement the allocation by up to £10 million over and above what we expected to spend. The eight new products offered by the Department of Trade and Industry will guarantee future success. Our track record on start-ups is very good. On 31 March the Barclays survey of start-ups showed that 465,000 companies or businesses started up last year—a 19 per cent. increase on the previous year and the highest since Barclays started the survey in 1988. Our track record on start-ups is rather good.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a risk of making it too easy to start up a small business? I would like to tell him about the scandal of the start-up and rapid collapse of Classic World of Fitness, a small private health club in my constituency. Its director, Mr. Robin Brown, who lives in Warwickshire—I have his address and details if anyone is interested—appears to be refusing to pay thousands of pounds to my constituents. If I provided my hon. Friend with the full details, would he be prepared to look further into the case?

Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to ensure that the appropriate authorities investigate that regrettable case. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and the House that that sort of case is an exception, but if the allegations are corroborated, we will be able to bring down all the resources of the law on the case. In the meantime, we want to make it easy for people who have good ideas to take them to market and to start up companies. As my previous answer showed, we have been able to help record numbers of people to start companies and I am pleased to tell the House that survival rates are very strong as well, but that will not deter us from ensuring proper consumer protection.

Julian Brazier: Is it not the case that overall levels of business start-ups today are significantly lower than in the last three years of the last Conservative Government? Is not the major reason for that simply the ever-increasing burden of bureaucracy, which deters people from starting up companies?

Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Julian Brazier: Come on.

Nigel Griffiths: I am puzzled about whether the hon. Gentleman has a comprehension problem or some other problem. Let me give him the facts. The Barclays survey of start-ups, which has been operating since 1988, shows that last year record numbers of businesses started up in this country. The figure is 465,000. If it is a record number of start-up companies, it will obviously be higher than under the last three years of the Conservative Government. We all remember—and we do not have to go back much more than a decade to find out—that 422,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in one year alone. If the hon. Gentleman wants a figure higher than 465,000, he could go back to the Conservative Government's first recession, during which 900,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in a single year. We are not going to take any lessons on start-ups from the hon. Gentleman. I will send him the details if he needs them to be repeated a third time.

Stephen O'Brien: Let us look into the outcomes of all these breathless claims from the Minister. He did not dare to mention the Chancellor's research and development tax credit, which is not surprising because the April KPMG survey established that 48 per cent. of small and medium-sized businesses either found that the tax credit was too complicated to apply for and administer or did not know about it at all. Only 3 per cent. of respondents said that it had been a significant benefit. How does the Minister reconcile his boasts with those depressing facts?

Nigel Griffiths: Let us provide the hon. Gentleman with the facts—not directly from me, but from the chief executive of Isis Innovation in Oxford, who commended the Government. He told the Financial Times that the Government had done a great deal to facilitate spin-outs from universities. I recognise that there is a problem with the tax change that was necessary to close a loophole. When I spoke to Tim Cook, the chief executive whom I have just mentioned, and to the director of Exeter Innovation Centre this morning, they told me that they accepted that the loophole had to be closed and agreed with me that we must work to ensure that, in closing it, the Inland Revenue in no way restricts our excellent track record of encouraging spin-outs. We are addressing the problem directly by talking to two of our most successful academic spin-out company directors. In contrast, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has spoken to either of them.

Stephen O'Brien: We can all read, as well as speak to people. Interestingly, the latest comments from the academic community suggest that the system is not working as the Minister claims, because spin-out companies do not have enough connection with that community. So the Government's proposals are flawed. It is important that Ministers are good at more than reading off jargon phrases in Hewitt-speak—but yet again, we have had another smug response.
	On Monday next week, the Chancellor is due to announce cuts in the DTI's role and spending. In light of that, what urgent and independent post-audit process have the Secretary of State and the Minister ordered to be carried out to demonstrate how much of the Department's current £8 billion of expenditure has been wasted?

Nigel Griffiths: This Government have spent £3 billion on the science and innovation framework already, and that is due to increase. The Opposition propose to freeze or cut public expenditure, which means that that budget would be diminished. Over the past seven years, the Government have worked with people who have succeeded in starting important spin-out companies. They tell us that they want the start that we have made, and the billions of pounds that the Government have invested, to continue and expand in the way that I have described. They do not want the cuts that the Opposition propose.

Textile Industry

Gordon Prentice: What recent steps she has taken to promote and support the United Kingdom textile industry.

Jacqui Smith: The Government continue to promote and support the textile industry by working with the industry-led textiles and clothing strategy group to build a sustainable future for it in the face of globalisation. Since 1997, the Government have provided more than   £100 million worth of support on a range of activities to promote productivity, competitiveness and diversification into new markets.
	The DTI has launched its new business support products in respect of innovation, best practice and raising finance. They are available to all eligible companies, including those in the textile industry. Ministers also take available opportunities to promote the sector through participation at industry and other relevant events.

Gordon Prentice: That is all very encouraging, but a textile firm in my constituency recently lost out on a contract for waterproof breathable garments for the Army. I learned from the correspondence that UK contractors can subcontract work to weaving companies in Pakistan.
	I took the matter up with Lord Bach, the Minister for Defence Procurement. He said that UK companies using overseas contractors were beyond the reach of the regulations, because "we cannot dictate" where manufacture takes place. Surely that matter is crying out to be looked at, as so much textile work is being allowed to seep overseas?

Jacqui Smith: I understand that companies in the textile and clothing industries are concerned about the problem that my hon. Friend has identified, especially as UK prime contractors increasingly source from overseas. Officials from the DTI and industry representatives recently met officials from the Ministry of Defence to achieve a better understanding of the processes involved in, and the opportunities that arise from, procurement strategy. The aim is to ensure that both Departments are able to deliver better value for money for taxpayers, and that UK producers enjoy the best possible opportunities.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Panaz Ltd., a company in his constituency. It has developed a very innovative furnishing fabric that has particular importance in health care environments, and today is being presented with the Queen's award for enterprise by HRH Prince Andrew.

Nicholas Winterton: Having been involved in the textile industry for more than three decades, may I ask whether the Minister recognises that, in western economies, clothing industries remain successful only when a country operates a profitable textile industry—that is, spinning and weaving—where fabric is provided in domestic mills equipped with the latest high-tech machinery, which dispenses with cheap labour? Will the Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether incentives can be given to the industry to purchase the latest equipment to compete with cheap labour outside this country?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way forward for our textile industry—and our manufacturing industry generally—is to invest in high-tech and innovative production. That is why we have supported the Textile and Clothing Industry Forum in a four-year programme to help to engage the supply chain, manufacturers and designers; to focus on issues such as process mapping and fast fashion; and to ensure that such innovative investment happens. As previous answers have made clear, we are a Government who have focused our attention on innovation and on innovative investment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a strong case to his Front-Bench colleagues that it is important to maintain such support for business, even in the face of the cuts their party proposes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I seek the co-operation of the House. We have had a classic example of long answers and long questions, and we shall not get much further down the agenda if that remains the case.

Fireworks

Shona McIsaac: How many responses she has received to the consultation on "Proposals to Tackle the Anti-Social Use of Fireworks through the Regulation of Use and Supply."

Gerry Sutcliffe: To date we have received approximately 720 responses, the majority of which were collected from constituents of Members of Parliament both at Westminster and at the Parliament in Scotland.

Shona McIsaac: I appreciate that answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm whether that figure includes the 480 responses from residents of Cleethorpes constituency, who overwhelmingly backed tougher restrictions to deal with the misuse of fireworks. I make an appeal to my hon. Friend on noise limits, because 120 dB is far too high a level for fireworks. Will he consider the noise limits, and when will the regulations become law?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and all her colleagues on the all-party fireworks group, who have worked with us to try to make the regulations appropriate for the firework season. The noise level is a particular problem, but we have worked with the industry and the community to establish an appropriate level. The figure of 120 dB seems to be the fairest option. We take into consideration all the recommendations put to us, and the regulations will—I hope—be announced very soon.

Travel Industry (Unfair Trading)

Mark Lazarowicz: What steps she is taking to prohibit unfair trading practices in the travel industry.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Government continue to do their utmost to promote the competitiveness and success of all businesses in the UK travel industry, while ensuring an appropriate level of protection for consumers and business against those who would trade unfairly.

Mark Lazarowicz: Osprey Holidays, a travel company based in my constituency, has to pay a large sum of money as a bond every year to ensure that customers who book a package holiday with them are properly protected for flights and accommodation, whereas some of its online competitors, which offer accommodation as an add-on through their websites, do not have to provide a similar level of protection for their customers. Will my hon. Friend look into that practice, which deprives customers of adequate consumer protection and puts companies such as the one in my constituency at a competitive disadvantage?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that point, which is a concern for the industry and which was raised with me at a meeting in March. I am talking to colleagues in the Department for Transport who are considering the response to the issue of bonded travel by the Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that we will have a response for my hon. Friend in the autumn.

Anne McIntosh: I know that the Department for Transport is considering the ATOL aspect and it is not in the Minister's remit, but is he aware that the European package directive is being revisited by the Commission? Would that not be a better mechanism to use to ensure that EU-wide cover is provided for both accommodation and flights if an airline goes bust?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I agree with the hon. Lady that this is an issue that needs to be addressed because of the potential damage to consumers. If that is an appropriate route, we will consider it in conjunction with the discussions with the Department for Transport.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister tell the House how he is getting on in his consultations with the travel industry about excessive premiums charged during school holidays? In some cases, they are 50 per cent. to 100 per cent., and out of all proportion to the costs incurred by the operators. Will he also investigate the activities of holiday clubs that use high-pressure selling techniques to obtain thousands of pounds from people for activities which, if covered by the timeshare rule, would allow a cooling-off period? Indeed, under that rule, certain practices would be debarred. Does he agree that the law should be extended to include holiday clubs?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It was important in discussions with the travel industry to look into its and our concerns, one of which is the price of holidays during the school holiday period. I am happy to say that the industry indicated that it would consider what could be done. Loyalty arrangements have been developed with some travel agents, giving people a reduction in price, and that is the sort of thing we want to see. We are looking at many of the issues relating to holiday clubs and I hope to be able to report to the House in the autumn about the issues Members have raised.

Manufacturing

Jim Sheridan: If she will make a statement on how public procurement affects productivity and innovation in the UK's manufacturing sector.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government spend £109 billion a year on goods and services, which can be a powerful incentive to businesses to develop new products, processes and services. That is why I have brought together industry leaders and trade unions, to ensure, with the Government, that innovation is in fact supported and encouraged by the procurement system.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does she agree that, in terms of the £109 billion procurement budget, a successful strategy to support manufacturing must make full use of both EU and international law? Does she also agree that the basis for the award of the procurement contracts should not just be the cheapest option, but should take into account the benefits to the British taxpayer, British industry and, most important, British workers?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that instead of looking at the cheapest price the criterion has to be, as it is, best value for money. We shall not abandon competition in public procurement, because it delivers best value to the taxpayer and the best result for public services, but I agree that the ideal outcome is to get best value for money and to have the goods made in Britain. That is why we are bringing together manufacturing industry and the Ministers and officials who make procurement decisions. That is why we are backing British manufacturing.

David Kidney: There is a growing manufacturing industry in this country in terms of renewable energy. Can my right hon. Friend do anything to encourage the use of renewable energy in public buildings for their heat and power supplies?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. As I think he knows, we have put renewable energy, along with energy efficiency, at the heart of the new energy policy. We are investing substantially in the renewables sector and we are of course encouraging and, in some cases, requiring the public sector to improve its energy efficiency and thus to make more use of renewables.

Inward Investment

Bob Spink: How much inward investment there has been into the UK in each of the last five years.

Mike O'Brien: UK Trade and Investment published the following numbers for inward investment decisions by foreign-owned companies to invest in the UK. In 1999–2000, there were 757 projects; in 2000–01, 869 projects; in 2001–02, 764 projects; in 2002–03, 709 projects and in 2003–04, there were 811 projects.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does not the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development report showing that inward investment to the eurozone is poor while inward investment to the UK—which of course is outside the eurozone—is relatively good, show how wise it is for this country to keep the pound?

Mike O'Brien: We believe that long-term investment in the UK, especially foreign direct investment or FDI, would improve if Britain were a member of the euro. However, that would depend on the circumstances in which the UK entered the euro. If we entered at the right time and in the right circumstances we would obviously benefit substantially, but we have learned from the failure of the Conservatives in 1992, when they entered the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and certainly at the wrong exchange rate. We have our five economic tests, which will, I am sure, enable us to make the right decision at the right time and for the right reasons.

Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the extra, new foreign direct investment that is important, but continuing investment by foreign companies in existing UK plants? Is he aware that when members of the Trade and Industry Committee visited the United States last week, we received the impression both in Chicago and in Silicon Valley that Britain is still the preferred European location for inward investment from the US, for all the obvious reasons?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There were 285 expansions by existing investors—up 22 per cent. on 2002–03—so, as he says, we are seeing that the economic stability; the investment in skills and education; the support provided by the DTI to industry, which is very much a factor that foreign investors see as welcoming for Britain; and the flexible labour market that we have created all ensure that the United States and other countries continue to see Britain as the place to do business. The US improved its investment projects in the UK by 11 per cent. last year, so the US and other foreign investors reckon that Labour has made Britain a good place to do business, which is why the economy is so successful today.

James Arbuthnot: What an incredibly complacent answer. The OECD report last month, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred, said that the foreign direct investment
	"flows into the United Kingdom fell almost by half in 2003, from a level that was already unimpressive by historical standards."—
	in other words, by comparison with what happened under a Conservative Government. Why is it that, under Labour, we have falling investment, the lowest economic growth in the Anglo-Saxon world, the biggest trade deficit in 300 years and a collapse in competitiveness and productivity? Is that anything to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in his position?

Mike O'Brien: The statistic from the OECD that the right hon. Gentleman quoted relates to investment flows. Under those statistics, Luxembourg, not the UK, is the country that benefits, but no one tends to use those statistics to compare foreign direct investment. No one does. Under the method of collating statistics that considers stocks, the UK is clearly the country in Europe to which most foreign investors want to go. We can compare the statistics under the Conservatives: whereas, this year, 811 projects from abroad have been invested in the UK, 10 years ago under the Conservatives the figure was 431—less than half. Under the Conservatives, when we also saw the disease of Euroscepticism putting Britain at the margins, causing squabbling with European partners and internal divisions in the Government, FDI was going elsewhere. Under Labour, stability is ensuring that foreign direct investment comes to this country.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that inward investment into the regions of this country is very important? If we choose to have elected regional assemblies, will they not, in fact, give us more power in the north-west to ensure that more of that inward investment comes to the north-west to create jobs in the manufacturing sector?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right: if we support regional development, as we have been doing, foreign direct investment will flow to the regions, and regional assemblies would certainly enhance that prospect. Our work with the regional development agencies has shown that they are an enormous success. We want to continue that success in the regions.

Robert Smith: It was intriguing that the Minister used the number of projects as a measure of inward investment, rather than the impact on the economy of the jobs involved or the value of those investments. Obviously, one large project can have more impact than several small projects that do not add up to the same impact on the economy. Will he explain why the Department considers the number of projects?

Mike O'Brien: One reason why we consider the increasing number of new projects that find their way into the UK is that they are often high-tech and the number of jobs involved in the UK will expand in the years to come, and the quality of the jobs that we are getting is improving enormously. For example, a manufacturing plant, Abbott Laboratories in Dartford, has set up a substantial new project—one third of new projects coming to the UK from foreign direct investment are in manufacturing—in which 80 per cent. of the employees must be graduates, and 20 per cent. of them are PhDs. Those are high-tech, highly paid jobs, and that is why getting large numbers of new projects into the UK is so important.

Coal Miners' Compensation

Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on the progress of coal miners' compensation claims.

Nigel Griffiths: To date, more than 353,000 payments have been made to former miners and their families under the main health schemes, totalling more than £2.1 billion. We continue to pay out a further £1.8 million a day, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for their help in ensuring that we are delivering the biggest health compensation scheme in history.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful for that reply, and I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved so far on coal health claims. Has any progress been made in negotiating settlements for those categories of workers who are currently excluded from compensation claims, such as surface workers who contracted chronic bronchitis and emphysema through working in dusty conditions, albeit on a colliery surface?

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to update the House on that. Mr. Justice Turner asked the miners' solicitors for evidence to support claims for compensation for surface workers. I made sure that the solicitors had our full co-operation and access to all the British Coal dust records. I understand that the solicitors have identified lead cases, which they intend to present to Mr. Justice Turner next week or the week after. As always, the DTI will meet the full liability to any miner determined by the courts.

Roger Williams: Undoubtedly, compensation claims and compensation are flowing through the system. Apart from surface workers, however, there are real problems for miners who worked in small private mines, particularly those who fall outside the qualifying period and who are finding it difficult to have that period disregarded and their claims considered. Will the Minister assure us that those miners will have their claims considered quickly?

Nigel Griffiths: I share with other hon. Members concerns about the small mines. I am happy to say that the claimants' group representing the miners reached agreement with the small mines representatives on their outstanding issues in February. Measures are being put in place to ensure that the necessary systems exist to make full and final offers, and those include amendments to the claims handling agreement, software adjustments to the calendar models and other things. I should appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman and others kept me posted on the impact that that is having on their constituents. We have a common aim.

Jon Trickett: The miners helped to make this country the wealthy place it is today. Many became ill in the process because of the negligence of the coal board. It is to the Government's great credit that they have secured the largest compensation package in history, resulting in more than £30 million being paid out in Hemsworth alone.
	May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to one small group of individuals? The burden of proof is on the miners to demonstrate that they worked in the mining industry. Some are old and their colleagues have died, leaving no evidence around that they worked down the pits and are now suffering as a result. If I write to my hon. Friend, will he look into that problem?

Nigel Griffiths: Yes, I should of course be grateful to hear about that. We want to rectify any outstanding injustice. My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters and will realise that we need some evidence, although records may not be available. We are going as wide as possible in accepting evidence, but I shall be happy to examine in some detail the case that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Energy Supply

Anne Picking: What assessment she has made of the security of energy supply.

Stephen Timms: We set out our market-based approach to the delivery of energy in last year's White Paper. It worked well to deliver secure energy supplies last winter, and we expect it to continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment to the Energy Bill, which has attracted wide support, requiring an annual report on security of supply for debate in Parliament.

Anne Picking: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the renewables agenda is laudable; however, if the wind does not blow, we are snookered. My constituency has Torness power station, which guarantees a regular supply, and Cockenzie power station, which has the flexibility to kick in and generate when security of supply is at risk—indeed, it is a flagship power station in Britain and Europe for its capacity to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree that security of supply is paramount, even if new nuclear replacement is required?

Stephen Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of security of supply, which is one of the four key goals set out in the energy White Paper. I also agree with her about the flexibility that we enjoy, with coal-fired generation and with an important contribution made by nuclear power stations such as Torness. The White Paper stated that we should not become over-dependent on any one fuel, but I believe that the development of renewables will help us by providing another independent source of power. On that basis, I think that we can look forward with confidence to continuing security in future.

Vincent Cable: The Government have used security of supply arguments to justify subsidising nuclear power, but now that energy prices, especially power prices, have recovered strongly, how can they justify placing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at risk through a continuing line of credit?

Stephen Timms: It is important that we enjoy continuing security. British Energy is working through a restructuring, which we all hope will be successful, and the Government provided a line of credit to facilitate that process. The European Commission is examining the state aid implications of that and we expect its decision before long. Our approach to British Energy's restructuring is the right one. It provides good grounds for optimism about—to echo my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking)—the security that we need in future.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Prime Minister's recent remarks about nuclear energy. Can he confirm that it remains Government policy—as set out in the White Paper—to retain the basic engineering skills in the sector, so that if a decision were made to embark on a new nuclear programme, we would be able to carry it through?

Stephen Timms: I can confirm that earlier this week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated the statement in the energy White Paper that we need to keep the nuclear option open, including by ensuring that we maintain the necessary skills, because we may well need new nuclear power stations in future. He also pointed out that we had first to overcome two major barriers. First, the economics of nuclear are pretty unattractive at present. Secondly, we need good answers to the question of what becomes of nuclear waste; work on that is ongoing. None the less, I agree that it is important that we keep the option open.

Power Generation

Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the future contribution of carbon capture and storage to the power generation process.

Stephen Timms: We published last year the conclusions of our "Review of the Feasibility of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK". We see the technology as potentially playing an important role in the long term, but the report identified a number of major hurdles that still need to be overcome.

Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case that even if we meet the difficult target of generating 20 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020, there will still be a gap in meeting our carbon dioxide emissions target? Is it not vital that the Government act now to develop carbon capture and storage technology in order to bridge that gap? That would be compatible with investment in renewables, but if the Government do not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked at least two questions, which is sufficient.

Stephen Timms: The programme that we have set out for achieving our ambitious goals on reducing CO 2 emissions includes the development of renewables, as my hon. Friend said, big programmes, ambitious efforts on energy efficiency and other initiatives. CO 2 capture in power generation needs considerable research and development, as it is still rather costly. The USA's FutureGen project, for example, will cost about $1 billion, but will not be ready until 2015. There are important opportunities, but it is difficult to envisage carbon capture and storage becoming viable before 2020.

Bank Holidays

John Grogan: What recent representations she has had asking for an increase in the number of bank holidays.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Department receives a variety of requests for new bank holidays. Over the past three months, we have received six requests to make St. George's day a bank holiday, one request for a UN day of peace, and one request to recognise a Bengali religious holiday. Only one request was received asking for a one-day increase to the number of bank holidays on an unspecified date.

John Grogan: Given that it is many weeks before the next bank holiday, that most European countries have far more bank holidays than we do and Ministers' emphasis on the work-life balance, is it not time that they show they retain their joie de vivre and launch a consultation on the number and nature of our bank holidays?

Gerry Sutcliffe: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his linguistic talents? The notion of extra holidays is attractive, and he will acknowledge that this Government, unlike the previous one, introduced the concept of four weeks paid annual leave. We have to balance the issue of bank holidays with the costs for businesses, which are about £2 billion a day. There is a balance between costs and extra bank holidays, but we will keep the matter under consideration.

Adam Price: I am glad that St. George has at least six supporters, but may I make a bid for St. David? The National Assembly for Wales recently supported a proposal to make St. David's day a national public holiday in Wales, so will the Minister agree to meet a small delegation from the Assembly to discuss that proposal?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am always happy to meet delegations, but I fear that I could meet large numbers of them if I gave way on this issue. People feel strongly about St. David's day, as they do about St. George's day, and if they and the hon. Gentleman write to me, I will provide a response.

Broadband

David Cameron: What recent representations she has received about difficulties in accessing broadband technology in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: My Department has received over 100 items of correspondence on this subject since January. The proportion of rural households within reach of a broadband service is rising quickly, and there is a realistic prospect that every community in the country will have broadband by the end of next year.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that answer. Trigger levels have been set for all the exchanges in my constituency, and they have all been reached, so does the Minister agree that the next big issue—he did not really address this in his reply—is how we get broadband to homes, farms and businesses that are some distance from the exchanges? Many groups such as Oxfordshire Rural Broadband provide community service solutions, but how will the Government help to tackle a pressing problem that will become more acute in rural areas as businesses and farms realise that they cannot get the service that the Minister talked about?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Some 87 per cent. of UK homes and businesses have access to broadband, but only 72 per cent. in market towns, and 22 per cent. in rural villages. There is still a big job to do, which is why the DTI and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs jointly set up a rural broadband unit that has carried out important work. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by British Telecom's progress in extending the distance over which its exchanges can support an asymmetric digital subscriber line. We are working closely with regional development agencies on the issue, and the rural broadband unit is working through the community broadband network to support community-based providers such as the one in his constituency to which he referred. I very much support that work and we are, in a variety of ways, encouraging and promoting further progress.

Ann Cryer: I wonder if my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this stage, the hon. Lady just has to ask Question 15.

Company Directors (Remuneration)

Ann Cryer: If she will take steps to stop the practice of continuing to reward company directors who fail to fulfil their duties.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Directors' remuneration is a matter for companies and their shareholders.It is a provision of the combined code that remuneration committees should avoid rewarding poor performance. Best practice guidance issued by the Association of British Insurers, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Confederation of British Industry also makes it clear that that is unacceptable.

Ann Cryer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my mistake. I was watching the clock instead of looking at the list of questions.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that rewarding company directors for failing to fulfil their duties sends out the wrong message to shop floor workers and trade union members in my constituency? They would be amazed were they to receive bonuses for shoddy work and lessening productivity.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I agree with my hon. Friend. She will acknowledge the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done on issues relating to the Higgs report on corporate governance and the Tyson report about the make-up of boards of directors. Clearly, failure should not be rewarded, and that should act as a motivation to make sure that people who are productive get their just rewards. That should apply in the boardroom, as well as on the shop floor.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Domestic Violence Victims

Bob Spink: What assessment she has made of the services available for women fleeing domestic violence or abuse.

Jacqui Smith: Domestic violence accounts for one fifth of all violent crimes, affects one in four women and causes the death of two women each week. Those are shocking statistics that we are determined to tackle.Our hand will be strengthened by the new Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which includes a range of measures and services that will provide additional protection and support for victims and help to bring perpetrators to justice.

Bob Spink: Could the Minister ensure that the services that must be available to women in those circumstances always take children into consideration, and that women, particularly those with children, who have to flee from violence, perhaps to a women's refuge, can get on to the local council's housing register without any impediment?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Frequently, children, too, are victims of domestic violence. That is why we need more refuges and why the increase in Government support of between £7 million and £9 million this year and next year will be important. The hon. Gentleman is right—I am sure he has had constituency cases, as I have—that we need to ensure that our housing authorities are open and responsive to the needs of women fleeing domestic violence, especially those with children.

Kali Mountford: Does not the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, together with the Children's Bill, mark a unique step forward in protection and security for families in their home? In addition to that legislative framework, should not the inter-ministerial group consider the wider social context and encourage collaborative and partnership working not just with local authorities, but right across the social framework, in order that the legislation can do its work effectively?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. There is a series of responsibilities at national and local level, in the voluntary sector and more broadly for ensuring that the widest framework of support is available, helped by additional Government investment through the supporting people programme, which received £57 million this year for housing-related support services. That is backed up by the activities of housing associations and other support organisations, and by the important work of voluntary organisations in this area, particularly Women's Aid and Refuge, which are working together to provide a single national 24-hour freephone helpline.

Iraq

Ann Cryer: If she will make a statement on the representation of women in positions of power in the new Iraqi Government.

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to say that six women have been appointed as Ministers and seven women as Deputy Ministers in the new Iraqi Interim Government. That includes a Minister for Women.

Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging list of appointments in Iraq. Will she have any input into the organisation of elections to the National Assembly, which I understand may well have a reserved list for women, perhaps even of 25 per cent.? Will she have a word with Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan, who were elected on such a list and who are pretty well disregarded by their colleagues because of the way in which they were elected?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. As she knows, we have throughout supported Iraqi women who want and, I believe, deserve a strong voice in the future government of their country. I am delighted to say that two of the seven commissioners on the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq are women. There is indeed a commitment that 25 per cent. of the candidates for the new Transitional National Assembly should be women. That is being taken forward by the United Nations, which will facilitate that election and electoral system.

Malcolm Bruce: Although it is welcome that women are involved in the new Government, the role of women in the new Iraq needs to be at least as good as it was under the previous regime, which ironically, in its general treatment of women, was better than many other states in the middle east. With regard to the question from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), is not the problem the fact that we have transferred sovereignty to the people of Iraq? Our job is not to tell the people of Iraq how to organise their society, but to ensure that there is a democratic framework that enables women to prosper and thrive in that society and in its Administration.

Patricia Hewitt: I must say that the Iraqi women with whom I have worked closely over the past 12 months would not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the previous regime, under which many of them and their families suffered and from which several of them were forced to flee. We do not seek to dictate how the Iraqi people should shape their future society and Government, and we support Iraqi people, and in this case Iraqi women, in having their voices heard. Iraqi women insisted on the transitional council withdrawing its proposal to reinstate sharia law, and they also insisted—we supported them—on the inclusion of women in all the new power structures. Many of those strong and courageous women will be elected to the Transitional National Assembly, and they will play an important role in building a strong, stable and democratic Iraq.

Professional Qualifications (Government Support)

Sally Keeble: What support the Government are providing for women returning to work who want to acquire professional qualifications.

Jacqui Smith: We recognise the barriers that women face in returning to work and acquiring professional qualifications, and consequently we have introduced a raft of measures to help ease the transition. Those measures include the new deal for partners, the new deal for lone parents, the new deal 50-plus, new rights for working parents, a national child care strategy, tax credits and financial support as part of the lifelong learning programme.

Sally Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that University college Northampton in my constituency runs very good nursing and teaching courses? However, women find it difficult to complete those courses and return to work because they have problems paying for child care, and other problems arise during holidays. Such women say that the schemes help them return to work to stack shelves, but not to do professional jobs. Will she talk to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills—some of them are sitting on the Front Bench—about integrating benefits and the student support system to allow women to qualify as nurses and teachers and to take degree courses rather than just diplomas? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want advice from Opposition Front Benchers. The hon. Lady knows that her question was far too long and rambling.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend rightly identified not only the challenges faced by those who want to return to teaching or the health service, but the importance of bringing back into those sectors those women and their skills. Progress has been made on bursaries and child care support in both education and the national health service, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind and report them to my colleagues.

Eleanor Laing: Is the Minister aware that it takes a long time to obtain a professional qualification in child care and that the need for more people to work in child care is urgent? Does she agree that a mother who has successfully brought up a child to school age has effectively served a rigorous apprenticeship in child care? Will she consider accrediting that experience towards a professional qualification for mothers who want to return to work in the child care profession?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady is right. The massive expansion in child care under this Government has placed child care workers' skills at a premium. The hon. Lady makes a fair point about the skills that women gain by bringing up their own children. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and other ministerial colleagues are examining how we can recognise those skills, while also recognising the importance of high quality training for our child care workers.

Gender/Trade Issues

Anne Campbell: What action she is taking on gender and trade issues.

Patricia Hewitt: Yesterday, I published a White Paper on trade and investment that makes the case for global trade that is fair, as well as free, and stresses the need for trade policies in developing countries to be integrated with programmes for development and poverty reduction and to ensure that the position of women, who are the majority of the poor in those countries, is taken fully into account.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that women are often more adversely affected than men by trade globalisation issues? For instance, they are more likely to be affected by the transfer of call centres abroad. Will she ensure that her policies take account of gender issues and that our trade rules mean that globalisation is good for women as well as for men?

Patricia Hewitt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we have to consider the differing impact that growing trade and technology can have on men and on women. It can work in both directions. The manufacturing jobs that we have lost to global trade have often been male jobs, but the new jobs created in developing countries have often been taken by women. The point is to take such factors into account to ensure that women as well as men, in developing as well as developed countries, can benefit from the growth in the world economy.

Education and Skills (Five-year Strategy)

Charles Clarke: Today, I am proud to publish the Government's five-year strategy for education and skills and for children's services.
	Since 1997, substantial new investment and significant reform have brought education, skills and children's services to the centre of our national life. A powerful alliance now exists for higher standards, embracing parents, our schools, colleges and universities, the voluntary sector, local authorities and employers. Improvements can be seen across the board: nursery education is now available for all three to four-year-olds; our 10-year-olds are among the best readers in the world; specialist schools are producing our best-ever results in secondary education; record numbers of young people are going on to university; and adults at work are gaining new skills.
	That progress has reversed years of under-investment and complacency; but more than that, it has lifted expectations in communities all over the country where educational failure had become entrenched. People know that education provides the key to lifelong achievement, and they now believe that it can be for them and for their children. They are right to have those expectations, challenging though they are to all of us in Government. Most parents do not want good schooling to depend on the ability to pay or to be rationed by admissions to selective schools. For many years, a quality education was the prerogative of the few: it must now become the entitlement of all.
	Five key principles of reform will underpin our drive for a step change in children's services, education and training: first, greater personalisation and choice, with children, parents and learners centre stage; secondly, opening up services to new and different providers; thirdly, freedom and independence for front-line head teachers and managers, with more secure streamlined funding arrangements; fourthly, a major commitment to staff development, with very high-quality support and training; and fifthly, partnerships with parents, employers, local authorities and voluntary organisations to maximise the life chances of children, young people and adults.
	Our five-year strategy is ambitious for children and learners at every stage of life. In the early years, all parents will be able to get one-stop support through children's centres that provide a combination of child care, education, health and advice services, and there will be a flexible system of "educare" that joins up education and childcare to provide 12½ hours of free support a week for three to four-year-olds before they start school, with more choice for parents about when they use it. Local authorities will play a major new role, through children's trusts, in joining up all local services for families and children.
	In primary schools, we will continue to drive up standards in reading, writing, numeracy and science, but also to enrich the school curriculum and to give every child the chance to learn a foreign language and to take part in music and competitive sport. We will develop more dawn-to-dusk schools offering child care and after-school activities to help children and busy parents. Those extended schools, as they are called, will combine with early years and with family learning providers to provide a genuine educational centre to every local community.
	In secondary education, we will build on the achievements of the past seven years to increase freedoms and independence, accelerate the pace of reform in teaching and learning and extend choice and flexibility in the curriculum. Driving our reform will be a system of independent specialist schools—not a new category of school, but more independence for all schools.
	Independence will be within a framework of fair admissions, full accountability and strong partnership. We will never return to a system based on selection of the few and rejection of the many. The strict national requirement for fair admissions will remain and we will not allow any extension of selection by ability.
	We will put in place eight key reforms. First, real freedom for schools will come only with secure and predictable funding in the hands of head teachers. Every penny meant for schools must get to them. We will therefore introduce guaranteed three-year budgets for every school from 2006, geared to pupil numbers, with a minimum per pupil increase for every school each year. That dedicated schools budget will be guaranteed by national Government and delivered through local authorities. We will consult in the autumn on the practical arrangements and on ensuring there are no adverse effects for other local government services.
	Secondly, we expect all secondary schools to become specialist schools with a centre of excellence. They will now be able to take on a second specialism. High-performing specialist schools could become training schools or leaders of partnerships.
	Thirdly, every school will have a fast-tracked opportunity to move to foundation status, which will give them freedom to own their land and buildings, manage their assets, employ their staff, improve their governing bodies and forge partnerships with outside sponsors.
	Fourthly, there will be more places in popular schools. There is no surplus places rule. We already enable popular and successful schools to expand—we have a special capital budget for that. Now we will speed up and simplify the means to do it. There will be more competitions for new schools, which will enable parents' groups and others to open up schools.
	Fifthly, a new relationship with schools will be established to cut red tape without abandoning our ambitious targets for school improvement or intervention in failing schools. We will halve the existing inspection burden on schools, with sharper short-notice inspection. Schools will have a single annual review carried out by a school improvement partner—typically, a serving head teacher from a successful school.
	Sixthly, in areas where the education service has failed pupils and parents, sometimes for generations, we will provide for 200 independently managed city academies to be open or in the pipeline by 2010. About 60 of those new academies will be in London.
	Seventhly, through the "Building Schools for the Future" programme, and a sevenfold increase in the capital budget for schools since 1997, we will refurbish or rebuild every secondary school to 21st century standards in the next 10 to 15 years.
	Eighthly, foundation partnerships will enable schools to group together to raise standards and take on wider responsibilities, such as special educational needs or hard-to-place pupils.
	Local authorities will play a key part as champions of pupils and parents, setting a strategic vision for services in their area, encouraging and enabling strong partnerships of schools, holding schools to account and intervening where standards are at risk.
	In each school, every pupil should have the personalised teaching they need to succeed, backed by excellent training for teachers, a broad and rich curriculum and more sport, clubs, societies and trips. We will continue to crack down on truancy and poor behaviour wherever it occurs, giving new powers to schools and local authorities.
	From the age of 14 onwards, there will be a much wider choice of subjects, with better vocational options delivered in close collaboration with employers, and the opportunity to start an apprenticeship at 14. There will be more choice after 16, with high-performing specialist schools opening more sixth forms where there are not enough.
	There will be a new framework for the curriculum and qualifications following the Tomlinson review. I appreciate the Conservative party's support in working with us. That will help the reform process. I also appreciate the strong support that the director general of the Confederation of British Industry gave yesterday for working together. That is a positive step.
	In the autumn, we will publish a Green Paper on bringing together activities and services for young people. The structure of what is currently offered to young people is too complicated and unclear, and we will tackle that.
	For adults developing their skills, there will be free tuition for basic skills and for those going on to level 2 qualifications, which is equivalent to five good GCSEs. There will be a leading role for employers through sector skills councils and a reformed further education sector, rewarding success and closing weak courses and colleges. For those going on to university, there will be grants for students who need them, an end to up-front fees and a fair system for graduates to contribute to the cost of their course. There will be foundation degrees in vocational subjects, designed with and for employers, and world-class research to maintain our leading edge, particularly in science and technology.
	This ambitious programme of reform is backed by the further investment announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement in April. Spending on education will rise by more than £11 billion to £58 billion by 2008 and—through the efficiency review and the 30 per cent. reduction in the Department's main staff—will be focused more than ever on front-line services.
	The dividing lines for the future of children and schools are clear: whether we select a few, or raise standards for all; whether there is no role for local authorities, or a new role for local authorities; whether we take funding out of public services, or put it in; whether there is freedom for all, or a free-for-all; and whether some children matter, or every child matters. On this side of the House, we have made our decision: for excellence, for opportunity, for choice, but, importantly, for all.

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, not only for his customary courtesy in letting me have early sight of his statement, but for ensuring that every Member of the House could thoroughly familiarise themselves with its contents by reading the papers in recent days.
	They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in which case Conservatives should feel really flattered today. There is much in what the Secretary of State has said that we can and do welcome: making it easier for good schools to expand; putting choice at the heart of the drive to raise standards for all; giving schools new independence; redefining the role of local authorities; and sharply increasing spending on schools. That all sounds rather familiar. Indeed, all of it was lifted from the Conservative policy document that was launched last week. Much of today's announcement is a tribute to the power of the photocopier; it is a product not so much of Blair or Clarke as of Xerox.
	We welcome the Secretary of State's renewed commitment to early-years education and the concept of the extended school. A three-year budget for schools, geared to pupil numbers, is getting towards the idea of funding following parental preference, which we also welcome, and I certainly support what the right hon. Gentleman said about our wish to play our part in finding consensus on vocational education, in particular for 14 to 19-year-olds.
	The Secretary of State said that parents must have more choice. Does he accept, however, that such a statement is meaningless without a commitment to create more capacity in the system? Why did he say this morning,
	"we haven't got a new places figure"?
	Why will he not match the Conservative pledge to create 600,000 extra school places to ensure that at least 100,000 additional parents can gain their first choice of school within four years? He also said this morning,
	"we will encourage new providers to come in",
	but he will not, will he? He will not match our pledge to pay for any child at any school a parent chooses, so long as everyone there is charged the basic state rate, so he is not really offering choice at all, is he?
	The Secretary of State says that he wants to create more city academies, which are a rebranding of the Conservatives' city technology colleges. Will he confirm, however, that future waves of city academies will receive far less funding from the state than those being set up at the moment? He says that he wants to create more sixth forms, which is an astonishing statement given that, under this Government, learning and skills councils up and down the country are driving through plans to close existing excellent sixth forms. Will he tell the LSCs to call off their attacks on sixth forms, or is his affection for sixth forms only skin deep?
	In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made great play of saying
	"we will not allow any extension of selection by ability."
	However, he also said this morning that
	"specialist schools are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of their children by aptitude".
	That means that all the schools that he now intends to turn into specialist schools—all secondary schools—will be able to select. Or does he seriously expect us to believe that there is a real difference between selection by ability and selection by aptitude? If selection is such a bad idea, why was the BBC briefed this morning to say that under the Government's plans
	"comprehensive schools will be swept away"?
	Is not the truth that he wants to be able to tell the middle classes that selection will come back, while telling his Back Benchers that selection will be kept out?
	Will the Secretary of State's proposals require primary legislation? If so, when will we see it?
	The Secretary of State said this morning that his main theme was that
	"we want to give more independence to schools."
	Therefore, does he agree with the unnamed Cabinet Minister who told a newspaper this weekend that
	"if you want to say these are like grant-maintained schools, I couldn't disagree"?
	That is the big idea: new Labour, new grant-maintained schools. They will seek a mandate for a third term promising to do the exact opposite of what they did in their first term. It is not much of an election slogan: "Vote Labour to reverse everything that the dreadful Labour Government have been doing."
	Will not teachers and parents recognise that if even Labour now admits that only choice, diversity and deregulation can raise standards, they should have a Government who believe in such ideas in their bones, not in their focus groups? Will not everyone know that the only way to get real choice and a real lift in standards is to vote Conservative?

Charles Clarke: Let me address those points one by one.
	First, on the question of mechanisms and capacity, let me remind the House that this Government are increasing investment in schools and school places by massive numbers. We are building the new schools, we are putting in the places, and we are offering the capacity to take the choice forward, on the back of a position of cuts, cuts, cuts during the Tory years.
	Secondly, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that his policy is to put more money from the state sector into private schools. When that is quantified, which his noble Friend in the other place has done, we realise that between £1 billion and £1.5 billion a year would be taken from state schools and put into private schools.
	Thirdly, on future waves of city academies, the commitment is to ensure that city academies reach 21st century world-class standards. It is not a commitment to a particular amount of money—some can be refurbished, some can be built, and that is the position. But they will reach those top-quality standards.
	Fourthly, it is completely untrue to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman does, that learning and skills councils are launching an assault on sixth forms, to use his words. Learning and skills councils in every part of the country have a programme to consider what is the best provision locally, to widen choice and to widen opportunities. That is what they are doing.
	As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, 94 per cent. of specialist schools offer no selection whatever on aptitude or anything else. The aptitude tests that we are talking about relate to sport, music and such directly related issues. I am glad, however, that he raised the issue of selection as he did. The truth is that that is the dividing line between the parties in the House: we say that there should be a code of admissions and no selection on the basis of ability; the Conservative party says that every school should have the ability to select its pupils with tests, in every circumstance, not only at the age of 11 but at the age of 5. That is a massive difference and the people of the country will know it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about primary legislation. There are aspects of our proposals that require primary legislation, which will be introduced in due course.
	Finally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that grant-maintained schools were funded by a national funding agency, which we are not reintroducing—we are funding through local government. Let me remind him that they had beneficial levels of funding compared with everybody else, whereas our specialist schools, city academies, non-specialist schools—all schools—are funded on the same basis, without the discrimination that was established through the Conservatives' system. Therefore, whoever the anonymous Cabinet member was, they were wrong, and I am glad to say that in public. No doubt he can tell me who that individual was.
	There is a choice facing the country—it is the choice that I have set out. I hope and believe that the country will vote for progress in the way that I have established.

Phil Willis: I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement and of the five-year plan.
	Having spent a lifetime in education, it is very sad that I should respond to a five-year statement by saying that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has summed it up right: it is Tory policy being delivered by a Labour Government, and I find that absolutely scandalous.
	We support much of what is in the mission statement launched by the Secretary of State today and by the Prime Minister yesterday, in his evangelical announcement in Camden. No one could deny that we need to raise standards for all, to eradicate educational failure, to extend educational achievement and to give schools more autonomy and freedom. It is strange to think that two years ago the Secretary of State vetoed a Liberal Democrat amendment to what became the Education Act 2002 that would have given all schools earned autonomy. That has now become standard policy.
	We support those objectives. Our differences with the Secretary of State lie in how they are to be achieved. We welcome the move to three-year budgets, which I think will be welcomed by every head teacher in the land, and the sensible change to a budget year beginning in September and ending in August. Why, though, did the Secretary of State not support the idea of an activity-led funding model, particularly for higher schools and particularly for the 14-to-19 phase? We also welcome his commitment to early-years centres. He said that all parents would have access to them, but will he confirm that by the end of the five years 80 per cent. of the poorest boroughs will have no early-years centres? I do not know how he can reconcile that with his commitment.
	Few Members would oppose the concept of excellence and opportunity for all, but the Secretary of State's plan seeks not to erase but to widen division. We were told that there would be no selection—that schools would not be allowed to choose students. How on earth can any Secretary of State try to persuade the House and the public from the Front Bench that that can be achieved by giving specialist schools the right to choose 10 per cent. of their pupils, and dancing on the head of a pin when it comes to aptitude and ability? How can it be achieved by allowing 500 new independent specialist schools to select 100 per cent. of their students on the basis of ability or similar criteria, and allowing 200 academies to select for whatever purpose they choose? [Hon. Members: "You got it wrong."] With respect, we got it wrong when Ministers said that there would be education for all. Saying that there will be no selection and then allowing virtually every school in the land to select is an illusion worthy of David Blaine.
	We are not concerned about academies or specialist schools. We are concerned about ensuring that children gain access to good local schools that receive state funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how—given the increased plethora of admission arrangements that he has announced—it will be possible to give all children, irrespective of postcode, ability, social class or religion, an equal chance to gain access to the schools of their choice? If he cannot guarantee that, yesterday's claim by the Prime Minister of excellence and opportunity for all was little more than a cruel deception.
	The deception does not stop there, however. How can the Secretary of State believe that creaming off £5 billion from the capital budgets of "schools for all" to pay for 20 new academies will do other than provide fewer resources for the rest? Will he confirm that local authority asset management plans are now redundant, and that a deprived community will be able to acquire a new school only if it is an academy? If the 500 new foundation schools all expand with the help of additional capital and revenue, what will happen to the others—the schools that are left with falling roles and fixed costs? How can that give the poorest of our kids the opportunities that they so richly deserve?
	This Government came to power promising standards, not structures; but today's statement was all about structures. It contained nothing about standards. Where was there mention of a curriculum in the new five-year arrangement? What is happening to the vocational offer? As for special educational needs, they have been parked out of sight.
	The Secretary of State ought to look around the country. He would find that not all schools are like London schools. Many are in rural areas where there is no choice because there is only one school.
	This is not a five-year plan. It is an election plan, launched in an attempt to steal the Tories' clothes before the next general election and next week's humiliating by-election results in Leicester and Birmingham.

Charles Clarke: Out of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was not going to mention the by-elections, but as he has mentioned them himself, perhaps I will. I was in both Birmingham, Hodge Hill and Leicester on Monday. In both cases specialist schools had been announced last Thursday, and in both cases the Liberal Democrats had opposed those schools from the outset. The Liberal Democrats twist and turn on these issues all the time.
	The hon. Gentleman got four things completely and utterly wrong. First, we are not saying that only 20 per cent. of wards in Britain will have children's centres and support for them; he will realise that if he reads the document. We have identified financial priorities, but we intend to provide children's centres for all people throughout the country. That is what we are seeking to do, and that is what we will do.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was wrong about selection. There is a code of admission for city academies, specialist schools and all other schools, which rules out selection on the basis of ability. It applies to all schools in those circumstances. City academies and specialist schools have mixed-ability intakes, should have mixed-ability intakes, will continue to have mixed-ability intakes and, beyond that, will have a responsibility—set out in this document—to work together to do far better for excluded pupils and pupils with special educational needs than they do at present.
	Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman simply failed to grasp the massive implications of our "Building Schools for the Future" programme. I said in my statement that spending on capital is now seven times as great as it was in 1997. We have a programme, set out in the April Budget statement, to ensure that every secondary school in the country has world-class resources and will continue to do so over the next 10 to 15 years. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already announced the first wave, and later this year we will announce the second group of local authorities involved. Academies are included in that programme, are working on it, and are a key element in it. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the only way in which a school can secure modernisation and investment is by becoming an academy is completely and utterly wrong.
	Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asserted that none of this was about the curriculum. Next time, I will not make the mistake of giving him a copy of a document in advance. If he had taken the trouble to read this document even at the most elementary level, he would have seen that the curriculum and everything about it is at the centre of our proposals. That applies to enrichment in primary education, to choices for 14 to 19-year-olds in secondary education, and to academic vocational courses. It is central. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is central, but he should not pretend that it is not central for us. We are driving curricular standards up: that is what our programme is all about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that there is a great deal of interest in the statement, but we have the business statement to come, and the subsequent debate, which is on a highly important matter, has had to be time-limited. I therefore hope that Members will make their questions extremely brief, and that the Secretary of State will respect that in his answers. I should add that, in line with Mr. Speaker's practice, I do not intend to call Members who were not present for the beginning of the statement.
	I now call the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, who I hope will get us off to a crisp start.

Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what was, for me, a clear indication that the Government's obsession with education continues. That gives great pleasure to a Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee. I am reminded of the 1995 commitment of the then leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, to both diversity and an end to selection.
	I have one brief point to make about something that concerns me. The three-year commitment to schools will be widely welcomed, but I have a little query about the extent to which the strategic role of local education authorities will be enhanced.
	May I end with a short request for information? I have tried to visit every specialist school that selects on the basis of aptitude, and have managed to find only schools specialising in music and the performing arts.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct on his last point, and that is a key issue on which his Committee will report shortly. We will study that report very carefully, and I appreciate the work that we have done with the Committee. Local education authorities have a key strategic role to play through the children's trusts, but more importantly through their involvement in the single annual review of every school, so that we can move towards higher standards. The local authority role is enhanced strategically, but the important issue is the budget that we have established for every school.

Patrick Cormack: Why, in six pages of this statement, is there no mention of discipline? Does the Secretary of State not understand that what is undermining his efforts to bring better standards to many schools is the collapse of discipline in them?

Charles Clarke: I used the word "behaviour" rather than "discipline", but I did deal with that issue; indeed, the document contains a lengthy passage on it. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the need for good behaviour and discipline, and the document sets out a number of suggestions on how to address that issue. I shall not repeat them now, but I am happy to discuss them with him further.

Jeff Ennis: Given that more than 91 per cent. of parents already get the school of their choice, how will that statistic be increased as a result of today's announcement? More importantly, how will choice be given to poorer parents who do not have their own means of transport?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the overwhelming majority of parents do have choice. However, the areas in which parents do not enjoy choice are not spread evenly throughout the country, and in some areas the level of choice is inadequate, which is why we are investing in them. As my hon. Friend suggests, the level of choice is least in those working-class areas in which education provision has failed for a number of years. That is why we are investing in them through independent specialist schools and the city academies, and it is to those areas that resources should be directed. Through programmes such as excellence in cities and those that deal with behaviour in schools, we will continue to focus on extending choice in those areas where the level of choice is least.

John Maples: Whatever the rights and wrongs of selection, Warwickshire has several very popular grammar schools and, at the same time, a Labour-led local education authority. Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, those grammar schools are among the most popular and successful schools in the county. The Government scheme for funding the expansion of popular and successful schools, to which he referred, rather trivially and unnecessarily specifically excludes grammar schools. Is the scheme that he announced today going to include or exclude grammar schools, or will his plan to encourage the expansion of popular and successful schools specifically exclude the most popular and successful ones of all?

Charles Clarke: The plan will not exclude them. It focuses on specialist schools, rather than schools that select by choice, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), we will consider what the Select Committee has to say about selection and then decide how to proceed in respect of Warwickshire and elsewhere.

Karen Buck: There are quite exceptional intake variations between inner-London schools in terms of the proportion of pupils with special needs, the proportion of looked-after children and the proportion receiving free school dinners. What measures are in place to ensure that all schools take a fair proportion of children who present the greatest challenge to the school intake?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue, with which two of the measures that I set out today deal. First, the single annual review will ensure that all agencies can work with schools to determine whether they are taking the range of pupils that they need to take. Secondly, we want to establish foundation groups, through which headmasters come together and take responsibility for children in such circumstances. There have been some very positive developments in this regard, and we will work to deal with this issue in a way that meets my hon. Friend's concerns.

David Curry: Will the whole of the three-yearly budget for schools, which presumably will increase year on year, be funded by the central formula grant, without taking into account local authority demands for annual increases in council tax, and will local authorities influence the distribution of the grant within their areas?

Charles Clarke: Yes.

Jonathan R Shaw: Given that my right hon. Friend wants to give parents more choice, and that the state has parental responsibility for looked-after children, what is he going to do to address the fact that 73 per cent. of such children leave school without any educational qualifications? Is it not about time that children in care got access to the very best and most popular schools?

Charles Clarke: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his record in campaigning on this issue. There are some 60,000 looked-after children, and their educational achievement is very poor. I can confirm that we have agreed a public service target to drive up educational standards for such children; indeed, this will be a central theme, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).

John Pugh: On the surplus places rule, are local authorities still obliged to do something about a problem that they can no longer realistically control, or is their new role to be the unwelcome undertaker for unlucky schools?

Charles Clarke: Absolutely the opposite: their new role is to drive up standards in the existing area and to focus on doing so in a proper way. Every local authority, including the hon. Gentleman's own, will have identified areas of educational failure, particular groups who are not getting the education that they need, and subjects that are perhaps not being taught as well as they should. It is the role of the LEA to drive up standards, and the proposals that I have announced today will assist in that regard.

Glenda Jackson: Who will decide what constitutes a fair admissions policy? For example, if local parents want their children to go to a specialist and/or foundation school that is single gender and faith-based, will its policy have to be adapted so that it becomes co-educational and takes children with or without any religion?

Charles Clarke: The short answer is that the Secretary of State decides on such matters by establishing a code of admissions that applies to all schools, including the ones to which my hon. Friend refers. It is a major subject of discussion as to whether the code should make statements on gender, single-sex education, faith schools and so on, and what those statements should be. The Secretary of State will continue to deal with such matters—in contrast with the policy of the Conservatives, who argue that they should be dealt with instead by each individual school.

Henry Bellingham: Bullet point 4 states, "More places in popular schools. There is no surplus places rule." Is the Secretary of State aware that many parents in my constituency want to send their children to King Edward VII school or to Springwood high school, but are being told that those schools cannot expand so long as there are surplus places in King's Lynn? What are his views on that?

Charles Clarke: I hope that, in the light of our proposals, the hon. Gentleman will be an enthusiastic supporter of them.

David Chaytor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the fact that the vast majority of parents do not wish to have their children's access to good schools denied on the ground of a spurious test of ability at the age of 11, and his commitment to a code of practice on school admissions that excludes ability as a criterion for selection. But does he agree that there is a fundamental contradiction between a policy that places parental choice at its heart, and a policy that enables 3,000 secondary schools to become their own admissions authorities, and thereby to establish the oversubscription criterion? Either parents choose the schools or schools choose the children; which is it going to be?

Charles Clarke: A national code of admissions deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to his involvement in this debate over many years, and I know that he was very keen that the Select Committee of which he is a member should conduct the inquiry it is in the process of concluding. I shall certainly look very carefully at its recommendations.

Graham Brady: Given the Secretary of State's clear assertion that there is no surplus places rule, will he give an equally clear guarantee now that any oversubscribed school that wants to expand will be able to do so immediately?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give that absolute assurance for a very simple reason: in deciding what to do, such schools have to take account of the local situation, of other schools in the area, of the adjudicator, and so on. [Interruption.] Of course they do. The idea that they can have an unequivocal right in this regard is simply not correct. The question is: can we achieve more flexibility? We believe that we can.

Clive Betts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by definition, more places in popular schools means more unfilled places in other schools? Does he understand that some of us are concerned about the potential disadvantage of a policy that is based on even more choice? One pupil's choice can be another's half-empty, struggling and inferior school.

Charles Clarke: I accept that my hon. Friend raises serious issues. When I visited a school in his constituency a few months ago, we discussed that matter. However, I would say that the genie of parental choice cannot—and, in my opinion, should not—be put back in the bottle. The fact is that the exercise of parental choice is an important process and I believe that we need as flexible a system as possible to meet the choice agenda. I acknowledge the fears that my hon. Friend reflects, but I believe that the system that we have established meets them.

Vincent Cable: How does the Secretary of State expect to meet his very ambitious school building programme when the leading private finance initiative contractor for schools is currently on the brink of bankruptcy? Has he conducted any discussions to establish how massive disruption and cost escalation can be avoided when PFI contracts go belly up?

Charles Clarke: The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman refers to only one of a series of contractors, and we are keeping a close eye on the situation. The fundamental issue is that the PFI is only part of our overall schools capital programme. Moreover, the performance or otherwise of a particular contractor is not the central theme of the whole capital programme and will not direct it in any particular way.

Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that nationally 10 per cent. of children do not succeed in getting into one of their choices of school. In the Watford area, about 15 per cent. do not get into one of their three choices of preferred schools. What message does my right hon. Friend have for parents—[Hon. Members: "Vote Conservative."] That would make it worse. Can my right hon. Friend assure parents in Watford that this package of ideas will improve their choices and that schools will not be able to continue to act, as they do now, on the basis of partial selection?

Charles Clarke: I have spoken to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions about the circumstances in her constituency. To illustrate my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), there are some patches of the country where the problem of lack of choice is more acute than in others—and that certainly applies to Watford where there have been lengthy discussions, as well as legal challenges, between Watford schools and the adjudicator. Gradually, there has been a diminution in the ability of certain schools to admit pupils on the basis of parental choice. I believe that the message that we are sending out, both through the single annual review and the foundation groups of schools, will work in the right direction towards achieving my hon. Friend's objectives. I commit myself to working with her to ensure that the choices of Watford's parents are properly met.

Gregory Barker: What is the real difference between allowing city colleges and specialist schools partially to select on the basis of aptitude as opposed to ability? Is not the Secretary of State's language bogus and a sham?

Charles Clarke: Not at all. First, there is a difference between 10 per cent. and 100 per cent. Secondly, there is a difference between recognising aptitude in music and art in the terms described by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and conducting 11-plus type examinations, which the hon. Gentleman wants to set for all schools. Those are fundamental differences and I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman cannot see them.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend spoke about establishing a framework for strong accountability and fair admissions. What will be the mechanism for strong accountability and how will the national code on admissions ensure a more balanced intake into our schools and an end to admissions by selection or by postcode?

Charles Clarke: First, through the profile that we have set out, we will ensure that each school is directly accountable to parents in the area. Secondly, local education authorities will be accountable to the public on the strategic issues that will be the subject of a single annual review. Thirdly, I believe that there are ways of intervening to encourage schools to accept people from across the whole range of selection and to work together. I believe that will make a major difference.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten our wonderful special schools. Will he give greater encouragement and support to moderate learning difficulty schools such as Cedar Hall school in Thundersley? Inclusion is not right for all MLD children. Parents must have choice: they know best what is right for their children.

Charles Clarke: Absolutely. We do not ignore the special schools. Indeed, we recently announced that such schools could join the specialist school programme. The key thing is to secure genuine partnerships. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen it happen in his own constituency, but specialist schools are working with special schools in the locality to develop stronger learning arrangements. That partnership will continue.

Gordon Prentice: Of the 200 city academies, how many will be new-build and how many will be re-badged? What is the mechanism for re-badging them and who will run them in the long term?

Charles Clarke: As each one develops, there will be a development programme, which may include rebuilding and refurbishment. As I said earlier, their objective is to attain world-class standards for the poorest communities in the country that have lacked them in the past. The decision to establish a city academy is a matter for the Secretary of State, but partnerships will be made to make that happen effectively. If my hon. Friend visited city academies—I hope that he will—he would recognise their positive impact in communities where education has been backward looking for many years.

Geraint Davies: The Harris city technology college in Croydon secures better academic results than any other state school, including religious schools, in the area. It allocates places on the basis of a representative range of abilities across the community in nine streams. Does the Secretary of State believe that it would be good to extend that practice to all state-funded schools and, if so, how would he achieve it—by regulations or some other mechanism?

Charles Clarke: That is one of the ideas that we will consider after the publication of the Select Committee report in a couple of weeks.

Harry Barnes: In my right hon. Friend's statement, there were two separate sentences on the roles of local authorities. He elaborated partly on that in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but can he say how much of the traditional role of local authorities will go?

Charles Clarke: To answer my hon. Friend candidly, the most important aspect of that traditional role to go is the ability of local authorities to take allocated money from schools. In future, such allocations will be ring-fenced. This is a significant issue for local government, as my hon. Friend's question suggests. Those authorities will be able to top up education funding by choice, if they wish, but I have clearly explained the major change. I know that it gives rise to concerns among some of my hon. Friends, but I believe that the gain from allowing schools to run three-year budgets themselves will be a massive one in respect of educational standards. That means that that change is worthwhile.

Mike Gapes: There are four specialist secondary schools in my constituency, each doing extremely well. Unfortunately, the policy of the Conservative leadership of the local authority has led to a serious shortage of school places being made available. Will my right hon. Friend consider how to force incompetent local authorities to ensure that all parents have the right to get their children into school without the stress and anguish currently suffered by many of my constituents?

Charles Clarke: Yes, together with my hon. Friend I will pursue the issues about Redbridge that he has raised.

Hilton Dawson: My right hon. Friend has set out a dynamic and exciting vision for the future, but if we are to achieve excellence, opportunity and choice for all, do we not have to ensure that the opportunities provided for schools are rooted in the Government's commitment to end child poverty? That will assist the integration of services across the board, particularly across the crucial boundary with health.

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has campaigned on that issue for a long time. One aspect of my announcement—I referred to it in my statement but it has received little attention—was a major uplift of everything we do for under-fives in early years provision. We want education, health and social services to work together to provide a strong offer of assistance to individual parents and families. Through the extended school programme for primary schools, we are specifically encouraging joint work with social services and health, which I believe is the key to what I and my hon. Friend want to achieve.

Jon Trickett: I represent 20 highly deprived mining communities where there are low levels of educational attainment. Given the geographic spread of those villages, the poor infrastructure and low car ownership, is not the offer of choice of school a false prospectus? Would it not be better if the four excellent comprehensive schools were properly managed, well funded and provided a full curriculum?

Charles Clarke: That is true, but let me add a point of view not from a mining community but from rural Norfolk, where there are a number of schools in small villages and towns that educate only up to the age of 16. There is no choice at that point, just as there is no choice in my hon. Friend's area. Those schools are banding together to see if they can jointly offer proper sixth-form provision. I believe that that is the way forward, which is why I commend our proposals for foundation groups of schools to my hon. Friend as they extend choice in a way that we both want.

Peter Bradley: If choice is to be available to all parents, it is accepted that we will need spare capacity in our school system. As has been suggested, that will arise in the less popular schools, which will lose per capita funding and risk further decline. Will the radical reform of the school system be accompanied by a radical review of school funding, so that we can ensure that all schools achieve the excellence needed to give all children real choice?

Charles Clarke: The short answer is yes. I believe that my statement today offers the most radical change to school funding systems for decades. The commitment to three-year budgets enables us to address those questions. I acknowledge that there are issues about managing change in these circumstances, and that is why I came to the view that national funding for education should be through local authorities. They are better able to manage the process of change than the national funding agency that would have been an alternative.

Kali Mountford: In recent years, standards in all Colne valley schools have risen phenomenally, but they have risen fastest in the poorest community. That is a remarkable achievement. Moor End high school has become Moor End technical college, through the hard work of Steve Morris, the head teacher, and of Molly Walton, the chair of governors. That phenomenal change will need to go further as a result of today's announcement. Will my right hon. Friend look at how we support school governors, on whom we will rely to bring that further change about?

Charles Clarke: I am glad to say that the phenomenon described by my hon. Friend—of better performance in schools that used to have the worst performance in the past—is not confined her constituency, and it stems from this Government's policies. Today's announcement will accelerate that process and lead to greater fairness. I agree that the governors' role is central. We are exploring a variety of ways to improve the quality of governors, and the training and support available for them. In that way, we can achieve a much stronger position. I believe that the foundation status announcements that I have made today will assist that process.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for helping us to achieve such good progress.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
	Monday 12 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill.
	Tuesday 13 July—Proceedings on the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Patents Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 15 July—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Traffic Management Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Traffic Management Bill.
	Friday 16 July—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 19 July—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]. Followed by remaining stages of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 20 July—A debate on Iraq on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 21 July—A motion to approve three regional assembly and local government referendums orders, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 22 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion on the summer recess Adjournment.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
	May I congratulate the Father of the House on winning the award of parliamentarian of the year? In his speech, he highlighted the current difficulties in mounting campaigns here, the lack of debates in which the Prime Minister participates, and the shortage of time available for hon. Members.
	Does not the Leader of the House have a responsibility to strengthen Parliament? In particular, he should allow sufficient time for the really important debates—something he signally failed to do over tuition fees, the Hutton report and the local government settlement.
	May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman why nothing has been heard of the review of Select Committee powers—the Osmotherly rules—following the Hutton report? Why should we always have to bring in a judge when we want a serious inquiry?
	More than six months ago, the European Scrutiny Committee asked the Leader of the House to change Standing Orders so that it could sit in public. Why has nothing happened about that?
	The Leader of the House announced that the three regional assembly referendum orders will be discussed on 21 July, before the Electoral Commission has even reported on the postal ballots fiasco, and before the debate—or indeed the publication—of the draft regional assemblies Bill. This morning, the Liverpool Echo reported that the Government will not publish that draft Bill before the House rises for the summer, even though we have been promised it time and again. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case? How are we expected to judge all-postal balloting and the proposals for regional assemblies if the report has not been published and we have not seen the draft Bill?
	Will the Prime Minister be publishing his response to our request for independent Electoral Commission observers at the two upcoming by-elections? Given the recent evidence of postal vote manipulation in Birmingham and elsewhere, surely that is necessary.
	I thank the Leader of the House for finally announcing the debate on Iraq, which I have been seeking for many weeks. Is he able to confirm that the statement by the Prime Minister on the Butler report will definitely be made on Wednesday 14 July?
	Finally, will the Leader of the House be taking part in the debate to explain why he pre-empted Lord Butler on GMTV by saying that whatever the verdict, no heads would roll? Surely those found to have made serious mistakes, including Ministers, should take the rap?

Peter Hain: On the hon. Gentleman's final question: if he is doing me the courtesy of quoting what I said on GMTV, he should do so accurately and not rely on newspaper spin. I said:
	"I do not know whether the Butler report will be critical or not but let's just wait for Lord Butler to report and then we will make a judgment. There may be lessons to be learned."
	Then I said:
	"I think the secret intelligence service MI6 and the domestic security service MI5 do a fantastic job for us. That is not to say that they do not make mistakes from time to time any more than Government Ministers like me or . . . the Prime Minister. But overall they do a fantastic job so I am saying in advance that this Government will not be a party to any kind of witch hunt against anybody"—
	especially the intelligence services. That is the point that I am making. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will defend the intelligence services, and the work that they do on behalf of our national security, as vigorously as do the Government.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement on Iraq and the Butler report. I understand that Lord Butler will indeed publish his report on 14 July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Mr. Speaker, as soon after that as is appropriate and when Lord Butler has informed us of the precise arrangements for making his report public. That is a matter for him. In the usual way, there will be discussions with Opposition Members about where they fit into that picture. We are anxious to be helpful in whatever way that we can, but I stress that this is not a matter for me or the Prime Minister, primarily. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will understand that it is a matter for Lord Butler.

Oliver Heald: On the same day?

Peter Hain: On the same day, indeed. Shortly after Lord Butler's report has been made public and he has been able to explain it, the Prime Minister will make a statement, as is appropriate and with the agreement of Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked about the Father of the House. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his well deserved award of parliamentarian of the year. He is one of our greatest parliamentarians, even if he makes life uncomfortable for Ministers from time to time. He did that for me when I was the Foreign Office Minister covering Iraq, but he is a man of tremendous courtesy, and he is one of the best Members of this House.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to the Prime Minister reporting back to the House. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the House of Commons Commission, and he therefore will have studied every page and line of the Commission's report in great detail. It shows conclusively that the number of debates and the opportunities for debating time have remained the same. The changes made by this Government have strengthened Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee only the other day. He appears before it twice a year, and that is a novel feature that we introduced. He has made many statements and come before the House pretty well whenever he has been asked to do so. On the issue of the Osmotherly rules, my right hon. Friend made it clear at the Liaison Committee earlier this week that I will bring before it the Government's suggestions and proposals for updating the rules. No dates have yet been agreed with the Committee, but it will be sometime in the autumn—whether early or late has yet to be decided, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	On the European Scrutiny Committee's vote to open its proceedings, we have not changed the Standing Orders because there has been no opportunity, in business terms, to do so. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, so he will know that it is considering the question, and he will be able to contribute to that consideration.
	I have not seen the Liverpool Echo. It remains, as I have said before in business questions—perhaps even in answer to the hon. Gentleman—our objective to publish the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny before the House rises. We want to achieve that.
	On the issue of postal votes, we await the Electoral Commission's report, which will appear in September. The commission, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been enthusiastic about promoting wider postal voting and I am sure that its report will be read with great interest in respect of elections and referendums of all kinds.
	On the issue of election observers, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the Leader ofthe Opposition following his request that the Electoral Commission should appoint observers to the by-elections in Birmingham and Leicester. My right hon. Friend makes it clear in his response that the decision about whether the commission should observe those elections is a matter for it to decide.

Paul Tyler: We, too, congratulate all the winners last night, including the Father of the House. I was also delighted to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) received an award from the Leader of the House. They were able to exchange greetings as former Young Liberals.
	The Leader of the House may wish to give us some information about the hunting Bill and his further plans. Has he noticed that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who chairs the Committee responsible, has recently hung a huge picture of a hunt in full cry in the Members' Tea Room? Is he trying to tell us something?
	Both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Health have been invited to give evidence to the independent inquiry, chaired by Lord Lloyd, into the illnesses suffered by troops in the first Gulf war. Will a statement be made on how the two Secretaries of State intend to respond to that invitation? It is an important independent inquiry into a very serious issue, and it concerns many veterans in all our constituencies.
	The Leader of the House has already referred to the excellent report from the House of Commons Commission and I pay tribute to all those who contributed to it. I should point out that I am not a member of the Commission. The Leader of the House is right that the report should be given more coverage. I know from his work on the Modernisation Committee that he is anxious that people outside the House should be fully aware of all the work that takes place here, and given that it is our principal role to hold those who spend the taxpayer's money to account—some £140 million of that money is spent at this end of the building—how and when can we debate that report? For example, will we have the opportunity to do so in Westminster Hall?

Peter Hain: On the latter point, I will look sympathetically at the hon. Gentleman's request. As he said, the report contains much fascinating and important information, although I am not sure that it will make the front page of the tabloids. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) will agree with him that it is an excellent report and deserves wider coverage. I also agree that the work of the House is not just about the cockpit of the Chamber: it is also about Select Committees, Standing Committees, other domestic Committees and a range of activities that keep almost all Members busy from dawn to dusk in their work as parliamentarians. That message needs to be spread more widely. We have agreed a series of recommendations in the Modernisation Committee report entitled "Connecting Parliament with the Public", and I hope that the House will take them forward. It is up to many other bodies in the House to take the practical suggestions forward and I hope that they will do so.
	I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman's praise for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). As I said last night, he is one of our greatest parliamentarians and a wonderful person. That was not because of my history in the Young Liberals 30 years ago; it was because I think that he is a genuinely nice person, which cannot be said for all 650-odd Members of Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Name them."] No, I will not be led further down that road.
	On the picture in the Tea Room, I have had it reliably whispered in my ear that it is of a steeplechase, not a hunt, and that it has been there for three years. It is nothing to do with the issues that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raises, but hunting is a matter that has been raised with me repeatedly at business questions. I cannot add anything to what I have already said and I do not intend to do so. The position is clear.
	On the issue of Gulf war syndrome and illnesses, I am sure that my right hon. Friends concerned will want to take close notice of the hon. Gentleman's important points. He properly raises the genuine concern about the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have in mind the time that I want to move on to the next business. Whether hon. Members can read my mind or not is up to them, but I appeal once again for brevity and for proximity to next week's business. I shall not call any hon. Member who was not here for the start of the statement.

Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend noted that early-day motion 978, in my name and those of several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, has now attracted 269 signatures?
	[That this House looks forward to the early re-introduction of the Government's Hunting Bill; recalls its own votes to ban the cruel sport of hunting with dogs on at least nine occasions since 1995; welcomes the Government's commitment to resolve the issue in this Parliament; notes, in the event of a further rejection of this legislation by the House of Lords, that the provisions of the Parliament Acts will apply; and looks forward to seeing a ban on hunting on the statute book by the end of this parliamentary session.]
	Last week, my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that there were two more business statements before the recess. There is now only one more business statement before the recess. I have assured the enormous number of people who have written to me about this issue that my right hon. Friend can be trusted to do what our early-day motion says, which is to ensure that the ban on hunting is on the statute book by the end of this parliamentary Session. I would like my right hon. Friend to confirm that our trust is justified.

Peter Hain: I fully understand why my right hon. Friend asks that question and has signed that early-day motion. Indeed, had I been on the Back Benches, I would probably have signed it myself. I can assure him that all those concerned in government are well aware of the obligations that we have to resolve the matter. He can be assured on that issue, as I have assured him in private before and as I have assured many hon. Members in the Chamber before.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate about telecommunications masts, a matter that is exercising my constituents in Great Bentley because Orange proposes to install a controversial mast there? Could we also use that debate as an opportunity to discuss why the Deputy Prime Minister is mounting a challenge in the Court of Appeal to his own guidance? That guidance resulted in a mast in Harrogate being sited very near a school, but many people regard it as a health risk and believe that the precautionary principle should apply. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister attacking his own guidance in the Court of Appeal, unless the Government's policy is a mess?

Peter Hain: The Government's policy is not a mess. We are seeking to provide certainty on the matter, under the law. We are clear that it is not the Government's objective to have telephone masts dumped in school playgrounds, although I recognise the proper constituency issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. The same issue has been raised in Birmingham where the Liberal Democrat candidate, who has been dubbed Nokia Davies, is a lobbyist for a telecommunications company that seeks to spread telephone masts all over the Hodge Hill constituency, which would be dreadful for the local constituents.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern and anxiety among Labour MPs that the hunting Bill will not become law and will miss its chance, as it did in the last Session? As time is very short indeed, and bearing in mind the possible date of the next election, can my right hon. Friend give a firm promise that the Parliament Act will be used and that the Bill will become law and that a vile and barbaric so-called sport will come to an end?

Peter Hain: I have repeatedly made my position very clear, including to my hon. Friend. I appreciate why he asks his question, but time may not be quite as short as the tone of his question suggests.

Angela Browning: I was very concerned that the Leader of the House did not announce a date during the next two weeks for the Second Reading of the Mental Capacity Bill, as the Government have published the Bill and we have had First Reading. I serve on the Bill's Scrutiny Committee, and have held discussions with Lord Filkin on the Bill's possible passage, so I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that we shall see the Bill before the Queen's Speech.

Peter Hain: Obviously, as business unfolds I shall be able to answer the hon. Lady's question more specifically. From what I said earlier, however, she will know that a lot of business is coming back from the Lords, so it would be sensible to dispose of that before the recess, not least so that Royal Assent can be given to many urgently needed pieces of legislation.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent debate next week on the shocking statistics published by the Home Office, which show that the number of stop and searches of people of Asian origin has risen by 38 per cent. since September 2001, and by 36 per cent. for those of Afro-Caribbean origin? That is of concern to the people of Leicester and also to the wider community, so does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a debate about that important issue?

Peter Hain: I know that the matter is of concern to the people of Leicester and I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised it. The Government are concerned about any issue of disproportionality and those figures suggest that pretty conclusively. We are committed to improving and developing a close partnership with the Muslim and other communities, with the shared aim of combating terrorism, as I know those communities want us to do, and we are undertaking specific work to reassure Muslim communities that counter-terrorism powers are being used proportionately and appropriately and that that will continue to happen in the future.

Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we will have a statement on the situation in Darfur before the House rises for the summer recess? There has been speculation that armed elements from the African Union and elsewhere will be going there to defend the people. When will they be in place and what other help is being given to the 1 million people who are under threat every day?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a statement two weeks ago. We all share the hon. Gentleman's concern. The Prime Minister is well seized of the matter and has been actively engaged, along with the Foreign Secretary, and there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the point again next Wednesday.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that on the basis of what he has already said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), it would seem that waiting until 11 October will be a bit too late to get the hunting measure through? Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is in his mind that when we come back in September would be the most appropriate time, as there is not much time left now? It would make those eight or nine days very exciting—although we only need one—if we got the measure through and put the House of Lords firmly in its place.

Peter Hain: There speaks the voice of experience and great wisdom in Parliament, but as my hon. Friend also knows from his long experience I have not yet announced any business for September.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House ensure that next Tuesday's business finishes promptly so that as many Members as possible can watch the excellent BBC programme "Restoration", which, as it happens, features a project in my constituency, Clestrain hall in Orphir in Orkney? It is not just about the restoration of a building but about the belated restoration of a man's reputation—that of the late Dr. John Rae, who was vilified by the 19th century establishment as a result of the evidence he brought back about the fate of the Franklin expedition in the north-west passage. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we are not forced to miss that televisual feast?

Peter Hain: It sounds fascinating and the hon. Gentleman has given it a fantastic plug.

Graham Allen: Neither the House nor I, as a Nottingham Member, has been directly informed about this: I read in the newspaper this morning that my city of Nottingham is to be rate-capped. The council tax payers will be billed, at a cost of £250,000, for an over-budget of £180,000. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is arrant nonsense and that over-centralisation has reached a ridiculous pitch? The orders are before the House at present. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House, rather than being tucked away in a Committee Upstairs, so that Members from Nottingham can bring the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box instead of the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who is fully conversant with the fact that it is ridiculous to save £180,000 by charging council tax payers £250,000?

Peter Hain: Both the Minister for Local and Regional Government and the Deputy Prime Minister will have carefully noted my hon. Friend's statement. The Minister for Local and Regional Government made a written ministerial statement today, which outlines the whole position, and my hon. Friend will be able to have sight of it now. Notwithstanding the issues that he properly raised about Nottingham, I am sure he will understand that it is in the interests of all council tax payers and of the country that local authorities keep their council tax rises to an absolute minimum, especially for people on fixed incomes.

Bill Wiggin: The Leader of the House will be aware of the fantastic job that the Royal Welch Fusiliers are doing in Basra. Will there be an opportunity to discuss, debate or even prevent the cuts that may be coming to the manpower in our armed forces because the Ministry of Defence has probably spent too much on equipment?

Peter Hain: As Secretary of State for Wales, I was in Brecon on Thursday night, watching a marvellous display of beating the retreat performed by Welsh regiments. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the Royal Welch Fusiliers have done a fantastic job in Basra, as have many other Welsh soldiers. Some of them have just returned from action there and some are about to go out. Perhaps we can at least unite in applauding all their work.

Tony Banks: Speaking as a chairman of the works of art committee, I confirm my right hon. Friend's observation that the painting in the Members' Tea Room is indeed of a parliamentary steeplechase. The only dog that appears is a Jack Russell, clearly an unsuitable beast for chasing foxes. Perhaps the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) should have listened more closely to his mother's strictures when she told him that if he carried on doing it his eyes would eventually fail him.
	May I tell my right hon. Friend that, although he is trusted implicitly on the Labour Benches on the abolition of hunting wild mammals with dogs, there is also a degree of nervousness? It is a problem for us, and I hope that he will not misunderstand the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and various right hon. and hon. Members will be going to see the Prime Minister to ensure that his firmness and integrity on the issue are the same as my right hon. Friend's.

Peter Hain: I am sure that there is no question about the Prime Minister's views on the matter. Just as I am on the same side of the football pitch as my hon. Friend, as a Chelsea supporter, so, too, I am on the same side as him in the argument about hunting.

Bob Spink: May we find time for a further debate on choice in education? I can then show how wrong it would be to close one of Canvey's three excellent secondary schools, not least because it would frustrate both parties in developing policies on choice in education and would prevent the Conservatives from giving the people of Canvey real choice following the next election, which we will win.

Peter Hain: Obviously, I cannot speak of the situation in Canvey, which the hon. Gentleman quite properly raises as a local Member of Parliament, but the people of Canvey will be very clear about the choice before the next election: continued massive investment under Labour, with more and more public provision for schools free of charge, and the Conservatives' policy of taking money from the state system and shipping it down the road to private schools to subsidise with taxpayers' money private schools that only a minority of the country can attend. We are in favour of choice and high standards for everyone, not a tiny, Conservative few.

John Lyons: The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motions on the future of the Forensic Science Service. He will also understand that there is widespread support throughout the House to keep that service. Will he urgently find time to hold a debate on that issue?

Peter Hain: I will certainly ensure that the Home Secretary hears what my hon. Friend has said—my right hon. Friend is sitting next to me—but the Forensic Science Service has played a very important part over the years and will continue to do so.

Bob Russell: Has the Leader of the House had any notification from the Secretary of State for Defence that he will come to the House before the summer recess to announce the downsizing of Her Majesty's armed forces? If that is to happen, will the Leader of the House guarantee that that statement will not be made on a quiet day to bury bad news? Does he not understand that there is great unease in military circles, particularly in garrison towns, such as Colchester, which are already suffering from the overstretch and undermanning of the Army? If the Government are planning to downsize the armed forces, let us at least have a debate, let us have it before the summer, and let us have all the cards on the table.

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Defence will want to come to the House as soon as it is possible for him to do so, and practical in business management terms, after the comprehensive spending review has been announced on Monday, when the hon. Gentleman can raise those issues. I am sure that he will agree that what we have seen over recent years and what will continue is massive investment in our defence forces on a scale that has not occurred before under any Government, especially a Conservative Government. I do not know how far back he wants to go in terms of a Liberal Government, but that support for our armed forces and the work that they do will continue under this Labour Government. Of course, under a Conservative Government there would be cuts in defence spending, along with many other cuts as well.

John McDonnell: May I ask the Leader of the House to allow an urgent debate next week on the district auditor's role in ensuring probity in local government? As a result of an Adjournment debate last month, we exposed the fact that the London borough of Hillingdon was forging and fiddling its planning performance figures to gain Government planning service delivery grant. The district auditor has completed his inquiry and is preparing his report but has not interviewed all the relevant former staff or the councillor who exposed the scandal, has not approached me or the residents who are coming forward with other planning scandals, exposing them individually, and proposes to provide the report to the London borough of Hillingdon's senior members and officers, who will decide whether that report is published or sees the light of day. I ask that with a sense of urgency.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the Ministers concerned will have noted it very carefully.

Wayne David: The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 1473, on the activities of a company called Walters (UK), which is removing contaminated waste from my constituency, but in doing so is causing extensive atmospheric pollution of the local area.
	[That this House expresses its concern about the operation of Walters (UK) in removing contaminated waste from the Castlegate development (Penrhos) in Caerphilly; believes that the people of Caerphilly are having to endure unacceptable noxious odours because of the failure of the company to prevent atmospheric pollution; points out that the company has belatedly brought in additional equipment, owing to public concern, and that this equipment should have been onsite from the first day of the operation; calls upon Walters (UK) publicly to apologise to the people of Caerphilly for the noxious odours which their operation has released; and suggests that all honourable Members should examine carefully whether this company should carry out future work in their constituencies.]
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that company's activities in having total disregard for my constituents' interests? Will he call on the company to consider compensating my constituents for the inconvenience that it has caused?

Peter Hain: I understand the strong feelings that my hon. Friend has properly expressed on behalf of his constituents. I understand that the situation has been constantly monitored by the local authority, which has appointed specialist consultants to advise it, and that the Environment Agency is also monitoring any impact on ground and surface water. Although the smells are very unpleasant, the regulators are apparently satisfied that no health risk is involved. I am told that work on removing the wastes that are causing the odours should be completed by mid-July.

Alan Simpson: May I repeat the request to hold a debate on the Floor of the House about the written announcement about the designation of authorities subject to council tax capping made by the Minister for Local and Regional Government? The statement gives central Government a bad name. The words "mind-bogglingly" and "stupid" spring to mind when considering the fact that Nottingham faces an overspend of £180,000 and a cost of £250,000 to re-bill every council tax payer to give them a rebate of £1.75—less than the cost of a pint. As we will have to defend that to local ratepayers, will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to explain why he refused to allow Nottingham to address that in the current year's budget, make the adjustment in the year that follows, use the £250,000 for productive purposes and not put us in an absurd position? If that was being done by the councillors themselves, we would demand resignations or sackings—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is packing a speech into a question.

Peter Hain: The Minister for Local and Regional Government will, in due course, read with close concern the points that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat what I have said already. The Government are between a rock and a hard place: local council tax payers, including his constituents, naturally become very angry about unacceptable council tax rises, and it is important that the Government maintain close control over excessive council tax increases. Of course, Nottingham and other local authorities were given plenty of notice to allow them to adjust the situation before such action was necessary.

Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend knows that the Public Administration Committee, on which I serve, will publish a hugely significant report next week. May we have an early debate on whether we really need lords and ladies, knights and dames in this day and age? There is huge interest about that subject outside the House, and I hope that we can debate the report.

Peter Hain: I cannot comment on a report that has not been published.

Clive Betts: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1448, on the regulation of estate agents?
	[That this House recognises the Government's proposals to regulate the buying and selling of homes by the introduction of home information packs; notes that, while solicitors, surveyors, home inspectors and financial advisers are all subject to regulation, estate agents, who are responsible for the co-ordination of the buying and selling process, are not subject to any regulatory or licensing arrangements; and believes that, in light of the abuses and bad practices highlighted by the Consumers' Association and the BBC's Brassed Off Britain, and with the support of the UK Association of Estate Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, all estate agents involved in the buying and selling of homes should be subject to statutory regulation, including an independent disputes resolution process with compensation arrangements for disadvantaged customers.]
	Given the proposals in the Housing Bill on the introduction of home information packs, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate, so that those who are central to the most important financial transaction that most people will undertake in their lives are first, fit and proper people, secondly, properly licensed, and thirdly, qualified to do the job? May I suggest that he will make himself extremely popular with the general public if he accedes to that very modest proposal?

Peter Hain: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering the Office of Fair Trading report on the estate agency market in England and Wales, which includes recommendations on the future regulation of the industry. We aim to publish a response shortly.

David Chaytor: In previous years, I have always noticed that my constituents' complaints about antisocial behaviour—everything from neighbour nuisance to under-age drinking and even the misuse of air rifles—increase as we enter the summer period. As local authorities and the police can now enforce antisocial behaviour orders, may we have a debate next week to assess the effectiveness of those orders? That would also enable us to tell the public why the Liberal Democrats oppose them.

Peter Hain: There is a great deal of concern about hypocrisy on this matter. We find that hon. Members—mostly Liberal Democrats—vote against speeding up the process of evicting noisy neighbours, against issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour and dispersal orders to tackle antisocial behaviour, against closing down crack houses in 48 hours and against fines for the parents of truants, and so on. Yet the Liberal Democrat candidate in Hodge Hill says that she supports all those measures. The voters will understand that that is plain hypocrisy.

Points of Order

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear from the newspapers this morning that the press were informed last night—well before Parliament was informed today, and I have not yet been informed—of the decision to rate-cap certain authorities. May I ask you to underline the strictures that we have heard from you before—that the House should be informed of those matters, so that the Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies can, even at the last minute, make representations to Ministers, rather than being pre-empted by briefings given to the press the day before?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that Mr. Speaker has great sympathy with hon. Members who find themselves in that position, but I venture to suggest that such matters may involve difficult questions of timing. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and no doubt Ministers will consider what he has said.

Alan Simpson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to consider the fact that before today's business questions Members were not able to get the written statement on rate capping that was issued at 10 am today? I was able to obtain it only by getting a copy from the Library. No copies were made available for Members through the Vote Office before business questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has reinforced the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), and I am sure that the matter will be examined.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been told that the Butler inquiry report is expected to be published next Wednesday and that the Prime Minister will make a statement thereafter. Not necessarily today, but in due course and perhaps early next week, can you give some indication of the likely timetable for that? It is an extremely important issue about which many Members will be concerned. If the statement is not immediately to follow Prime Minister's questions, which I understand may be the case, it would be helpful if, on Monday, Tuesday or whenever, the Chair could indicate when the statement is expected to be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker. There may also be activity in the same direction through the usual channels.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation Act 2004
	Age-Related Payments Act 2004
	Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004
	University of Manchester Act 2004

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2003–04

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

David Blunkett: As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I interchange presentations on Intelligence and Security Committee reports, and it is my duty to lead this afternoon.
	I thank the Committee for another thorough and constructive report, which scrutinises, examines and holds to account those in the services and the Ministers who oversee their work in an absolutely critical area. For myself and my right hon. Friend, I express appreciation for the unstinting work of the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). She would be here this afternoon if she were not attending a more joyous occasion—celebrating the graduation of her son, whom we wish well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will do a sterling job in her place.
	Our thanks are due, once again, to the security and intelligence services, to GCHQ, to the counter-terrorism branch and special branch forces across the country, and to the police. Their work stands between us and disaster. On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made it clear that whatever we do in terms of internal resilience and whatever steps we take in foreign policy, diplomacy and the tackling of causes across the world, the work of the intelligence and security services is vital in protecting our interests, and we thank them again for what they have done over the past 12 months, which has safeguarded us so far.
	My right hon. Friend will reinforce my thanks to the outgoing head of the security and intelligence service and to his successor. My thanks are also due for the work of the commissioners for intelligence and interception, of the chief commissioner for surveillance and of the chair and members of the investigatory powers tribunal. I thank them because it is important to highlight on this annual occasion the level of scrutiny and oversight that takes place in those critical areas, in a way that does not exist anywhere else in the world. We are proud of that, and it is important in ensuring that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence can undertake our duties knowing that there is proper scrutiny and that we are held to account through the monitoring of those bodies and by the House of Commons. Today is one of those occasions on which there is often more light than heat and on which we receive less coverage than we would on a subject featuring more hot air than considered judgment. Nevertheless, this is Parliament doing its job, ensuring that scrutiny is real.
	As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will outline, there have been horrendous examples across the world over the past 12 months of how the threat is real and how we, in this House, were right in the way that we tackled matters in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001. From Istanbul to Madrid and from Saudi Arabia to Morocco, we have seen incidents over the past few months involving real terror and the taking of life. We have seen, too, the preparation of that terror in other countries. I was with the Spanish Interior Minister when he made a presentation to European Interior Ministers earlier this week. He outlined the material that Spain has gathered, the lessons learned, and how critical it is to be able to track those who prepared the attack in Madrid on 11 March. He outlined the way in which that preparation spread its tentacles across national boundaries, and how people going about what appeared to be their normal business were actually preparing to turn into terrorists. Those people were not suspected, and they were holding down normal, professional jobs. They were not on the very edge of disadvantage, alienated and disaffected. They were, in the old cold war term, sleepers, waiting their opportunity to wreak terror and death on innocent civilians in Madrid.
	We are beholden, as we consider how we undertake the work of protection and how we respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee report, to remind ourselves that people, in the House and outside, have been sceptical about whether measures were necessary, whether the threat would continue for years to come, and whether what my right hon. Friend and I have described in relation to franchised terrorism—the network that exists and the loose associations—really constituted a threat that could really require a war on terror. We believed that it could, and the tragic examples that we can give emphasise that that is the case.
	In the United Kingdom, we have seen the superb work of our services disrupting and foiling potential attacks. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, when reporting this morning on his decision to conclude his term in office in January—I thank him for his work, although there will be other opportunities to do so—described the way in which often hidden, unspoken, unpresented work can safeguard our interests in the capital and across the whole country. There are case-by-case incidents of which we do not hear publicly, and when we do hear about them there is often too much heat and not enough light, which gets in the way of the necessary investigations.
	Often, cases are continuing. Often, there is an inability to spell out why statements cannot be made. That is just part of dealing with the kind of terror we face. We simply ask, as we have on other occasions, that people be patient about what we can do to make that work more apparent. We have seen how the much maligned and traduced part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has worked in practice. Over the past 12 months, since we last debated it in the   House, and since February, when we debated the Newton Committee, Lord Carlisle's report and the annual renewal of provisions, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has dealt with continuing cases of appeal. Fourteen cases have been dealt with, and 13 led to the original decision to certificate being upheld. I was grateful for how Lord Carlisle's report upheld the process by which those certifications had taken place.
	I am grateful to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, a court of superior record chaired by a High Court judge, for its work. One individual was released, which shows that the fear voiced by some MPs when the Act was passed that the commission would act as a rubber stamp was unfounded. The commission did not believe that the individual in question was free of connections with terrorism, but was unable to conclude that he had links with al-Qaeda and the international terrorist network.

Mark Oaten: The Home Secretary will remember that when we debated the Act and the Newton report, he said that he was moving towards examining intercept communications as a means of securing more evidence. Will he expand on that this afternoon?

David Blunkett: I did not intend to go into the matter in depth, although we have given a commitment that should our policy change—I shall discuss the steps that we are taking in that respect shortly—it would be right and proper for the House to debate it thoroughly. A tide of opinion in favour of some adjustment is running in all three major political parties and beyond.
	Before I move on to that matter, let me say that one individual subject to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission arrangements has been bailed to remain under surveillance at home because of mental health problems. I wish to assure the public that close surveillance is being kept and we are ensuring that no risk arises from that decision.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, let me set out our current position. Given the concerns expressed and the long-running debate on intercept, we indicated that we would ask for a review that examined in detail the way in which it would be possible to use intercept in individual cases, in terms of intelligence and evidential presentation. That work is continuing—an interim report will be presented to the Prime Minister shortly—because of the important issues touched on in the 27 February debate relating to the ability to separate intelligence from work that would prove to be usable as evidence presented to a court, and therefore usable in terms of charge. We have to determine how to separate the two and what to do with those aspects that do not fall neatly into the intelligence or signal system, which obviously will not be suitable for intercept, and those aspects that fall into the category of potential evidence to be presented to a court. The difficulty is substantial, because one has to devote resources to being able at the end of the process to present material in a form that is usable without knowing at the beginning of the process that one will wish to use it or that it will become usable. When we debate the subject in full, we shall have to address some of those issues.
	Let me make my position clear. I was deeply sceptical, but I am prepared to be won over to the view that, in limited circumstances, intercept might be of value. However, we need to be won over to its use. We cannot presume that it can be used and live with the consequences in ignorance of the detail and the damage that might be done. I do not have a closed mind, and I do not believe that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have. However, we must not be carried away by enthusiasm for a new way to present material in evidence; we must deal with the difficulties that the services have presented to the inquiry. We must also bear in mind the differences between our system and the one used in Europe, not least in terms of the nature of investigating magistrates and the preparation of cases, and the differences between our system and the one used in the United States and north America. I hope that we can produce a measured report, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agrees that, whatever decision we reach, we should present it to the House so that we can have a debate on that important issue and thrash out the questions raised, not least by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which knows about the ongoing work and which will take our evidence and report back to the House itself.
	Let me return to the way in which existing powers are being used. Since the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, some 562 arrests have been made under the Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was Home Secretary. Of those arrests, 97 have led to charges being made under the Act, and other charges under other legislation and other powers have been made in other cases. It is worth reflecting on the changes in the nature of the threat, on why the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was necessary, and on why the terms on which we have used other parts of the 2000 Act have been important.
	Last week, there was controversy about the use of powers under sections 41 and 44 of the 2000 Act. We have the matter under scrutiny; that is why we published detailed figures and set up an action team. We are keen to ensure that intelligence-based policing, rather than wholesale sweeps, drives the necessary work and the use of those powers. Inevitably, there has been a massive increase in the use of the powers, particularly those in section 44, illustrated by the fact that the number of incidents of their use has increased from just over 8,000 to 21,500. That increase has affected all racial and ethnic groups, but disproportionately the Asian and black communities, which is why we are taking a close look at the matter. However, we recognise that use of the powers and designation of areas under section 44 inevitably centre on certain areas of the country—the figures reflect changes in practice not throughout Britain, but only in areas that are more likely to be affected by known danger, and are therefore likely to be targeted for the necessary use of police surveillance.
	I am encouraged by the way in which the police have responded. There are good examples, including in south London, of detailed work with the community. Part of securing our safety and stability—part of the work of intelligence, security and policing forces, domestic and foreign—is securing the confidence and therefore the engagement of the communities most affected. The communities that are most likely to be targeted and traduced by those who are intent on using terrorist methods and on funding and planning terrorism need to be part of the solution. I welcome strongly the work of Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain. It has taken brave steps to encourage everyone in the Islamic community in the UK to assist and support our efforts and to understand that, as citizens and residents of this country, we are in this together. It is therefore encouraging that communities in south London which, because of their nature and that of the dangers that they face, have been the subject of interventions under sections 41 and 44, have been drawn into understanding the nature of stop and search. Their members have been monitoring with the police the reasons for such interventions and have been applauding and welcoming police action to protect their communities. I want that work to be extended to other parts of the community in Britain, so that we can engage everyone in feeling that they are part of the solution.
	Together, the four strands of our internal work on resilience—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—make sense. If I were still a Methodist local preacher I would say that the greatest of those four is prevention. We are in the process of drawing up better, more relevant information and guidance for the public on their role and what they can do, and we will make that available shortly.
	Turning to the report and the way in which it affects areas for which I am responsible—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will obviously deal more broadly with global issues—I shall concentrate on domestic security and policing. We have increased resources dramatically, and that will be reinforced in the vote on the allocation for the security and intelligence services following the spending review. We will expand the capacity of the Security Service, for example, by 50 per cent. over the next three years, and the work that it, the intelligence services and GCHQ do will be substantially underpinned in the spending review. The joint terrorism analysis centre—JTAC—was established exactly a year ago, and is a model of inter-agency working. Everyone involved would commend the work that it has done since its inception. The national security advice centre is working with the business community to look at the forthcoming challenges, not least electronic intervention and terrorism, and has been assisted by information and other support provided by the police.
	The eight regional intelligence cells that have been created following the reorganisation of special branch are up and running, and Bryan Bell, the director in charge of reorganisation, has continued his work. As the House knows, we provided an additional £15 million for that work. The House has debated at length the relationship between serious and organised crime and terrorism. The serious organised crime agency is taking shape, and the necessary posts have been advertised. It will help to tackle that relationship more effectively, linking the work of immigration agencies, Customs, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The underpinning will remain the work of the Security Service, and I stress that while the percentage of resources has remained steady, there is no less a commitment from the Security Service to supporting cross-boundary and international operations.
	The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee referred to espionage in the publication last week. I shall make the position clear—we are spending a smaller percentage of the enhanced and expanded budget on counter-espionage, but in fact we are spending more than we did last year. The service is using new techniques in addition to tried and tested methods to make its surveillance more effective. We give an assurance to the House, the country and people overseas who may be attempting to intervene, whether from former enemy countries or friendly nations, that the services do not merely stand ready—I apologise for that terrible civil service phrase—but, in fact, are ready to intercept and are doing so. If there is a dramatic increase in resources re-prioritisation is inevitable. By increasing the sums available we can ensure that work will continue even if the percentage allocated has been adjusted.
	Counter-terrorism is receiving the support and resources that it requires, as well as the domestic back-up to reinforce resilience. The Intelligence and Security Committee has, with considerable fervour, ensured that this year the intelligence services committee chaired by the Prime Minister has drawn together all the relevant services and Ministers to co-ordinate and pull together the various strands of that important work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will speak about other areas that the Intelligence and Security Committee has touched on, including the BBC monitoring facility. As for information, we are keen that the national infrastructure security co-ordination centre, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn set up in 1999 when he was Home Secretary, should examine areas outside the scope of its existing operations. I thank its chairman for his work in creating a one-stop shop to develop awareness and new approaches to threats that have not previously existed.
	Expertise is essential if we are to link the work of the Secret Intelligence Service to an understanding of what is happening across the world and an awareness of our vulnerabilities. Many desktop exercises have taken place over the past year and, as we discussed in February, there was an up-front exercise at Bank tube station on 7 September last year. We learned many lessons and are keen to develop further exercises, including a joint exercise with the United States in the   spring. I suggested to Dominique de Villepin, the French Interior Minister—he was previously the opposite number to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—that we undertake additional joint work with the French, and he agreed to that earlier this week.
	It is incumbent on all of us to come up with ideas, questions and proposals to monitor what we are doing, as I spelled out at the beginning of my speech. We cannot guarantee 100 per cent. success, but we can ensure that 150 per cent. effort goes into protecting our country and the effective use of our resources to do so. The most fundamental duty of Government is to ensure the security of the nation. We must balance reassurance and confidence building with honest and transparent dialogue about the dangers.
	We must balance the necessary steps for security, as we spelled out at the end of February, against the necessity to provide freedom and liberty without encroaching disproportionately on individuals' rights. Getting that right is a difficult task. We believe that so far we have done so, and when we published a consultation paper on the recommendation of the Newton committee at the end of February we asked people to give us their thoughts on further developments including, for example, new legislation on association with terrorism. Over the summer, we asked people to examine the relationship between domestic and foreign terrorist acts, and between individuals. Following the consultation, we will establish a way forward and present proposals before the spring so that the House can debate them in time for the renewal of the necessary orders and in preparation for the sunset clause which, the two Houses of Parliament agreed, would come into force in 2006.
	We must be sensitive to difficult issues on which party divides have often broken down—people of all persuasions have been convinced to set aside the usual adversarial approach to get things right. It is in that spirit that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I address those issues this afternoon.

David Davis: I, too, received a very courteous letter from the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, explaining that she could not be present today. We quite understand why. I am sure she will be well represented by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but he will forgive me if I say that we will still miss her presence, as she is a formidable Chairman.
	There was much to agree with in the Home Secretary's opening remarks, even his lay preacher quote, which I think was from I Corinthians 13. I join him in paying tribute to the intelligence and security agencies and the whole of the UK intelligence community for their constant hard work—so far, fortunately, successful hard work, and I am touching wood, as is the Foreign Secretary—at a time when the threats and challenges we face have never been so great.
	I join the Home Secretary in thanking the Intelligence and Security Committee for its persistent scrutiny of intelligence undertaken on behalf of the House, and I also pay tribute to the Committee. Looking back through previous debates, it seems traditional to tease the Committee for the sheer number of asterisks in its reports. Paragraph 37, for example, reads:
	"We have been told that ***
	***. We are concerned that ***
	***
	***
	***
	***
	***. We will return to this matter."
	That was an interesting paragraph. The Government's response states:
	"The government notes the Committee's concern and its intention to return to the matter."
	I wonder, frankly, whether there is any point in including such a paragraph in the report. I understand the redaction process that goes with it. As hon. Members have said in previous years, we should consider how liberal we can be with information. Some of it could be more forthcoming, particularly on financial figures—an issue that I raised before in a previous incarnation.
	As the Home Secretary said, the threat that we face is real and immediate. It is sad that historically we—the UK is not alone—have consistently underestimated the threat to our security. The Committee states:
	"The number of people willing to become involved in terrorism is rising",
	and
	"They are fanatical in their determination to succeed".
	The Director General of the Security Service tells us at paragraph 9:
	"The initiative generally rests with the terrorists. The timing of any attack is of their choosing".
	That is why we must always be ready and, in the words of the Home Secretary in his White Paper, I think, be one step ahead.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's comments on resources. Because we are dealing with the security services, he is in a considerably better position than I am to make a judgment about the exact numbers involved. The ISC report goes into resources in some detail and states that resources should be made available sooner. The report analyses the shortfall in funding and comments, at paragraph 135:
	"A turning point could have been the East African Embassy bombings in 1998, which first demonstrated the power of Usama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network, but this resulted in no significant changes to priorities or resources."
	It goes on to analyse the continuing shortfall in funding at the turn of the century, points up the delays implicit in training staff, and says of the agencies' request for a sizeable increase last year:
	"This was too late and it is why they do not have the level of resources that they need for all their priority requirements. We hope that the period of under-expansion has now been ended by the significant increase in funding for the Security Service. However, we remain concerned that the SIS and GCHQ will need further additional funds if the collection gaps are to be reduced and the UK's ability to identify, monitor and disrupt threats from abroad is to be improved."
	At paragraph 125, the Committee goes on to identify another key failure. It states:
	"We were also informed that the JIC had not assessed the threat to the CNI"—
	the critical national infrastructure—
	"from electronic attack since 2002. Capabilities to attack the CNI exist, and, while both NISCC and CESG sought to reassure us that they were reducing the vulnerability of the CNI to technical attack, we were not convinced."
	That is entirely consistent with the rather slow response elsewhere by Government to the more unglamorous parts of defending ourselves against terrorism—the important services to deal with the aftermath of an attack, such as the NHS's ability to deal with chemical, biological and nuclear attack, the failures of the emergency planning mechanisms, or the lack of urban search and rescue equipment for firefighters. If there was ever a need for joined-up government, it is now and in this area. The critical national infrastructure is a key part not to be forgotten.
	Before I turn to the fundamental issue of intelligence in the report, I shall ask some specific questions relating to the Home Office. I am happy to take an intervention from the Home Secretary, as I did not quite pick up the timing of one or two aspects to which he referred. The ISC notes that the Home Office paper on the formation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency states that the review of whether intercept evidence should be admissible as evidence in court was to be completed by June 2004—in other words, already.
	To say that the report was time critical would be an understatement. The liberty of individuals and the safety of the whole nation will be materially affected by its conclusions. The Home Secretary did not mention that in his general or specific remarks. Will the report be available very soon, or was this the report he referred to for next year? I hope the Foreign Secretary will pick up the issue later. We need to know what progress has been made.
	We welcome the work set out in paragraph 60:
	"As part of this work a group, led by NCIS, will produce a new national intelligence requirement by June 2004. We will monitor how this requirement for crime-related intelligence will feed into the JIC Requirements and Priorities for secret intelligence and we will take evidence on the impact that the formation of SOCA will have on the Agencies."
	That is one of the Home Secretary's better inventions, if I may say so. It holds out hope for serious improvement in the way we deal with international crime, in particular.
	One of the specific criminal and security concerns that the ISC raises is the possible threat to national security posed by the importation of dangerous goods via the post. Paragraph 149 notes that the Committee warned the Government about "this potential vulnerability" two years ago. This is not just a terrorist issue; it is a criminal issue too. There is considerable anecdotal evidence of readily convertible imitation weapons coming in by post from overseas suppliers, for example. Although we appreciate and support the role of the police intelligence systems in detecting the flow of such weapons, we believe that much more widespread screening of packages from abroad should be instigated. That is a matter of relatively straightforward policy. I should be interested to hear the Government's proposals in that regard.
	Before I deal with the general intelligence picture, I shall raise one question about a paragraph in the report that struck me as surprising. It is about the performance of GCHQ. My question is aimed at the members of the Committee. The report states in paragraph 55:
	"GCHQ has successfully managed the PFI contract".
	I accept that GCHQ is world class in its capabilities in decoding, interception and intelligence gathering, and the ISC reflects that. However, in relation to the management of the private finance initiative, the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the GCHQ management. In addition to the six specific criticisms in the report, the Chairman of the PAC said:
	"There have been unwelcome cost increases on this programme. The process of moving the technology so critical to GCHQ's business will take longer and cost well over £300 million more than initially estimated, including extra running costs during the transition period. It is astonishing that GCHQ did not realise the extent of what would be involved much sooner, given how critical these systems are to its core business."
	Perhaps the Committee could explain whether it took the PAC report into account, or whether it simply disagrees. That is rather important.
	I turn to the central issue: intelligence. Intelligence is gathered to assess threats. That is self-evident. The purpose of intelligence is to inform policy-makers. The question that has been hanging over us with the Butler report and which cannot be avoided in this debate is whether we have used intelligence in such a way that the Government got what they wanted to hear, rather than what they should have heard. That means, of course, that intelligence ceases to be useful. The ISC report on weapons of mass destruction cast serious doubt as to whether that line was crossed. The issue comes up again in this report. Before I turn to the substance of that issue, I shall raise a number of apparent failures to keep the ISC properly informed during the course of the year.
	The ISC itself raised the Government's failure to provide it with eight Joint Intelligence Committee papers relating to Iraqi WMDs and UN inspections, and it was mighty generous to accept the Government's apology and statement that no deliberate attempt was made to withhold information. It seems extraordinary that the Cabinet Office's intelligence and security secretariat, an arm of Government whose sole function is information handling, was incapable of handling information on that occasion.
	In its investigation for last September's report on WMDs, the ISC was not told that two members of the Defence Intelligence Staff had registered their concern about the 24 September dossier. Indeed, it was told that no such concerns had been expressed, but the report states that three members of GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service were moved from Gulf war duties, presumably because of similar concerns. I am not sure of the extent to which the Committee was made conscious of the level of dissenting opinion in the agency in drawing up both its September report and this report.
	In paragraph 87, the Committee states:
	"we are not satisfied with the Government's response"
	to the September report on WMD.
	"It emphasised only four key conclusions while either rejecting or failing to address fully"
	the other 24
	"conclusions and recommendations. We regard this as extremely unsatisfactory and we recommend that the Government explicitly address each of our recommendations and conclusions in future responses."
	The Government response, which was published this week, states:
	"we regret the Committee found its response unsatisfactory . . . The government accepts the Committee recommendation and future responses and will adopt the format used in this response".
	After one ISC report and a Government response, and another ISC report and another Government response, we still do not have the answers to the fundamental questions raised by the ISC. If I ask the Government some of those questions again today, perhaps we will be lucky.
	I will not go through all the fundamental questions, but I shall ask four of them. First, why did the JIC assessment not precisely reflect the intelligence provided by the SIS? Secondly, why did the JIC assessment not highlight in its key judgments the uncertainties and gaps in the UK's knowledge about Iraq's biological and chemical weapons? Thirdly, do the Government not accept that through deleting comments on the nature of the threat to the UK, the case was not balanced? A rounded judgment on the threat to the UK should have been reached. Finally, the failure to be specific in the dossier was irresponsible and misleading. The Government should have provided the public with clear and accurate information. Those concerns highlight an uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the real threat, which stands in stark contrast to the confident public position initially struck by the Government.
	The simple truth is that only four of the conclusions and recommendations were dealt with explicitly because that suited the Government's agenda at the time, which is another example of an Administration caught up in denial and blame. Let me remind the House of the Prime Minister's statements on the matter. In the preamble to the September dossier, the Prime Minister said:
	"What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt"—
	beyond doubt—
	"is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons".
	He also said:
	"I and other Ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority"
	In July 2003, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that he had
	"absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of mass destruction programmes".
	However, in his evidence to the same Committee earlier this week, he contradicted himself by saying:
	"I have to accept that we haven't found"
	WMDs
	"and that we may not find them".
	What is the Government's position? Is it that the weapons existed, but that we have not found them, or is it that they did not exist all along? That issue is unavoidable in a debate addressing the effectiveness and use of our intelligence gathering services.
	The Prime Minister said that he and other Ministers
	"were satisfied as to the authority"
	of the intelligence. Was he referring to the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary? If so, will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he is still satisfied as to the authority of that intelligence? When Ministers reached those opinions, was it on the basis of knowing the qualifications and possible weaknesses of the intelligence or was the intelligence that they saw stated as a certainty? Was the intelligence changed or were qualifications and doubts removed in order to satisfy the Prime Minister's agenda? Was the intelligence changed in order to persuade the public that Iraq was an imminent threat when it seems now that that may not have been the case?
	The normal procedure, where there is doubtful intelligence, is that the chairman of the JIC attaches a caveat note to the Prime Minister. Did those caveats remain attached to the intelligence containing information provided by, for example, dissident Iraqi cells, and if not, why not? If so, why did the Prime Minister allow dubious intelligence to be included?
	The aim of the intelligence dossiers in the run-up to the war in Iraq was to outline the current threat in the context of UN resolutions to the public. It is fundamental in a democracy that such a document should give a balanced view, and documents of such importance should have been analysed word by word. This question must be answered, and we may get the answer today or we may get it after the publication of the Butler report: were the public let down, not through the inaccuracy of the agencies, but through the selective and improper use of information? Did our Government subordinate the nationally vital issue of intelligence to the politically convenient demands of propaganda?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute time limit on all speeches by Back Benchers.

Kevin Barron: First, I want to pass on the apologies of the Chair of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), for her absence from this important debate. She has written to hon. Members to explain that today is her son Andrew's graduation day, and I am sure that hon. Members understand why she is absent.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), both of whom referred to our report. Our report commends the agencies for the work that they have done in the past year, most of which will never be made public. It is right publicly to thank the staff of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service, GCHQ, the Defence Intelligence Staff and the assessments staff for their important work and their contribution to the protection of UK interests, both here and abroad.
	The ISC performs an important role in the oversight of the UK's intelligence community, and I should like to pass on our Chair's thanks to all members of the Committee and our secretariat for their work over the past year. The work load has been heavy, especially for the secretariat, over the past 12 months—the Committee produced two substantial reports during the course of the year. The first report was published in September 2003 and concerned intelligence on and assessments of Iraqi WMDs. The second report, which we are debating today, is the annual report that the Committee is statutorily required to produce and which the Prime Minister is required to present to Parliament.
	During my years as a member of the Committee, we have always debated the annual report. I welcome those debates and hope that other hon. Members welcome them too. We completed the report in May this year, the Prime Minister published it on 29 June and the Government produced their response on Tuesday of this week. Our report contains a number of conclusions and recommendations, which the Government have, for the first time, separately addressed in their response.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned recommendation C, which he quoted in full, including the asterisks. The Committee felt that it was important to include recommendation C. We knew what would happen to recommendation C and that the issue of asterisks had been raised in previous debates, but we included it in the interests of good housekeeping and to bring an important point to Ministers' attention. I have no doubt that recommendation C will appear in the press, who will no doubt have fun with it.

David Davis: I did not raise recommendation C simply to tease the Committee—amusing as it is. Redaction is a matter of judgment, and it is not a clinical exercise. For example, when the Public Accounts Committee produced a report on the overrun on MI5 and MI6 buildings, the redactions were reduced by about 90 per cent. by the use of a rigorous approach, which might have been applied to this report. I do not know about the current procedure, but it is well worth reviewing.

Kevin Barron: That may be so. Most of the report that we produced earlier this year would not have been in the public domain unless it had been crafted so as not to identify sources. We have moved on substantially in that respect. We realised that recommendation C would be treated in that way. I assure all hon. Members, and anyone who may read or listen to these debates, that any redaction in any of our reports is agreed by the Committee. We unanimously agreed this report and the previous report on Iraq. If we were unhappy with any redaction made in this report or any previous one, we would say so.
	We welcome the Government's detailed response to our recommendations. The key point is that we are still taking evidence on the nature and circumstances of the interviews of US-held detainees that are conducted by or observed by UK intelligence personnel, and on the usefulness of those interviews. We intend to carry on doing that.
	We comment that, owing to the necessary additional efforts allocated to counter-terrorism, risks are being taken in the area of counter-espionage, and that collection gaps exist in other areas.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was right to raise the issue of money. Having a bigger pot and a smaller percentage does not mean that there is not more money. As experience moves from one area to another, counter-espionage develops some gaps, as I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises.
	We note that the agencies were given additional resources in the 2000 and 2002 spending rounds which they were not able fully to spend, partly because, although they have embarked on recruitment campaigns, it takes time to train staff to be effective. That is not a question only of languages, but of dialects. Some agencies have to undertake a complicated and difficult process in that respect.
	The Committee concludes that the scale of the challenge posed by international terrorism was underestimated by the agencies at the end of the millennium. However, the formation of the joint terrorism analysis centre in 2003 addressed the concerns about co-ordination and timeliness of reporting that we raised in our report on the Bali bombings. Although the agencies were expanding and receiving additional resources, they did not reassess the threat and challenge that international terrorism posed until late 2003, partly because the scale of the problem became apparent only through increased co-operation with partners. That reassessment prompted Ministers to agree to a significant increase in Security Service staff over the next four years. We believe that that significant increase should have occurred earlier—hence our view that it was too late—and remain concerned that the SIS and GCHQ will require additional resources in terms of people and funding if collection gaps are to be filled. We got that message across to Ministers very strongly in the course of our deliberations with them.
	We state our intention to take additional evidence on the Defence Intelligence Staff, particularly on how its analysis work links with that of the assessments staff and how its collection effort supports national requirements. We have received good co-operation from the DIS in that regard. We will also take evidence on the internal systems of the intelligence and security secretariat, which contains the assessments staff, and its structures and resources. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden about the absence of the eight reports, which did not reach us for logistical reasons. We did not understand why that happened, but we received a good explanation and accepted an apology, which will be put into the annual report. I hope that the ongoing work that we are doing will ensure that we have effective systems whereby material is retrievable if required.
	We intend to complete our work on the relationship between the intelligence community and the media. In that regard, we would welcome comments from the media on the contact and information that they receive from the agencies. We said in our report on Iraq that we would undertake that work, but it is not yet complete.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. He quoted from paragraph 55 of the report, in which we said:
	"GCHQ has successfully managed the PFI contract, which has provided them with an excellent facility, and the fact that the sigint service to customers has been maintained during the transition is welcome."
	People may have become confused about that. We were referring specifically to the private finance initiative contract for the new building, which was the biggest single PFI project undertaken in Europe. There is a long history of comments about cost overruns and time overruns on PFI hospitals and other public buildings. However, this project was successful. The PAC looked into the transitional cost in terms of the upgrading of new equipment and so on, and made certain recommendations and conclusions. Having taken evidence on the matter, we dealt with it in our annual report of 1999–2000 under the heading, "GCHQ New Accommodation Project". We said:
	"We understood that Ministers would be asked to authorise transition costs between four and ten times the original estimate."
	We were well aware of the situation, which the PAC picked up on because it has gone through the system. Indeed, Parliament should have been well aware of it, and not as surprised as was suggested in some of the press reports when the PAC published its report.
	The Committee has a good working relationship with the agencies and Departments. We see relevant Ministers, in terms of responsibility or as users of intelligence, perhaps more than any other Committee of parliamentarians. This year, we took evidence from the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, for Home Affairs, for Defence and for Transport, as well as from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Attorney-General. We also see several senior officials, including the heads of the three agencies and the DIS, the security and intelligence co-ordinator and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
	Our report on Iraq and WMD included two sections entitled "Terminology and Organisation" and "Intelligence Sources", which were deliberately included to inform Parliament and the wider public about matters relating to intelligence. In our latest report, we included a section headed "The Limitations of Intelligence", which is on page 9. That has the same intention—to inform Members of Parliament and the general public of intelligence issues that are not normally discussed. I hope that people read it.
	Before I conclude my remarks, I should like to put one matter on the record. The Committee has been asked to comment on the appointment of people to particular jobs, including heads of agencies. It is not, and never has been, for the ISC to comment on timing or the people appointed. We do, however, comment on the process that has been followed in making the appointment. In the case of the next chief of the SIS, or "C", the Committee is content with the appointment process. In our report, we record that the appointment of a JIC Chairman—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mark Oaten: I join the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary in thanking the Intelligence and Security Committee for its work. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) had to be cut off, given his able job in representing the Chairman. We entirely understand the reasons for her absence—she has a happy occasion to attend. I pass on the apologies for absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is also a member of the Committee, and whose daughter is having a baby today.
	I want to put on record the thanks of Liberal Democrat Members for the wonderful work of our intelligence committees. The intelligence services in this country carry out marvellous work, much of which we never hear about. It is an incredible achievement and the report and today's debate afford an opportunity to put that firmly on the record.
	We all think back to where we were on 11 September. My mind was racing then about the consequences of those events. I suspect that, like me, many hon. Members were pretty sure that we would face an attack in this country in the ensuing period. Although terrible events have occurred in Madrid, Istanbul, Bali and other places, it is to the credit of those who work in our intelligence services that, so far, we have avoided such an attack in this country. That is a remarkable achievement. If I had been asked to predict events after 11 September, I would not have believed it possible to avoid some sort of atrocity in this country for such a long time.
	The intelligence services have had to adjust to a changing world, which has moved from one of difficulties and problems between superpowers to that of super-terrorists. That means complex changes, which have required the intelligence services to adapt. They require much more resources and their activities have become more important than ever—that is difficult for them. Our ability to scrutinise their activities becomes correspondingly more important as their actions are much more in the public domain. I therefore welcome the debate and believe that we should have an annual occasion to examine their work.
	Not only the intelligence services but the politicians have had to adapt to a changing world. The Home Secretary was right to reflect on those difficulties and tensions when he clearly set out the tension that he feels as Home Secretary in bearing the burden of responsibility for all of us in ensuring that he and the Government do everything possible to protect our security. There is tension between doing that and ensuring that we do not abandon the freedoms that we are trying to protect.
	I know that the Home Secretary becomes enormously irritated with my colleagues and me. I almost choked on my yoghurt—not muesli—when listening to "Today" and heard myself described as part of the Libertariat—[Hon. Members: "Liberati."] It was "Liberati". [Interruption.] I want to put it on the record that I do not eat muesli; I do not come from Hampstead—I was born in Watford; I started wearing sandals only when I saw David Beckham doing it, and I note with interest that, out of the three Home Affairs spokesmen, the only one with a beard is the Home Secretary. That may suggest that there is a Liberal desperately trying to get out.
	The more serious point is that whatever one's values when taking on the Home Secretary's job, I imagine that the burden of responsibility and the information to which one is made party creates a tension about the direction that one should take. When Liberal Democrats are critical, I hope that the Home Secretary acknowledges that we understand his problems and difficulties and that it is our job in opposition to probe, test and ensure that we are doing what we can to protect values, which are perhaps sometimes not ideal in our changing world.
	Let me consider the report, which begins by dealing with resources. I acknowledge the need for increased resources, but perhaps the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary could comment on the dilemma between putting more resources into intelligence services and the knock-on effects on our police. I was greatly struck by the conversations that I have held with members of the Metropolitan police. They said that although they obviously welcomed all the intelligence that they received, the more they get, the more demand it creates for individual police officers to follow it up, participate in raids and deal with the consequences. It is therefore not simply a case of ensuring that we put extra resources into the intelligence services. They must be matched by extra resources for the affected police authorities and forces so that they can conduct the necessary activity on the ground.
	I congratulate the Home Secretary on his discussions with the Chancellor. Press reports and the Chancellor's comments suggest that the Home Secretary has successfully secured considerable resources. That is welcome and appropriate in such times. The Home Secretary mentioned the disparity in terms of the work in counter-espionage and the fall in the percentage figure of the budget devoted to it. Does he believe that, although there is extra money available to the Home Department, next week's spending review announcement will also mean a slight increase in that specific percentage? Will the percentage as well as the money improve?
	The shadow Home Secretary pointed out that it is ridiculous that page 11 of the report provides a breakdown and a bar chart that examines the resources for the Secret Intelligence Service, the security services and GCHQ, but displays only asterisks from 2001 to 2005. It is hard to make a case for not revealing the amount of resources that goes to the individual services. I cannot understand the security risk involved in that. The advantages in parliamentary scrutiny outweigh the dangers and risks of including those figures.
	Nearly all the consequences of extra resources involve people. Recruiting is clearly a difficult and complex process. For example, the Committee mentions the difficulty in trying to obtain a good ethnic balance in recruiting. That is important not only in its own right but especially because of the types and style of work that we expect our intelligence services to undertake, their understanding with specific communities, and their ability to communicate and gain the confidence of some communities. I hope that the Home Secretary will pick up on the Committee's comments and ascertain whether we can do much more to get a good ethnic mix.
	Some concerns have been expressed to me about the National Criminal Intelligence Service and what happens when it transfers to the serious organised crime agency. I get a sense from people who are connected with NCIS that they are worried that the organisation is suffering from a sort of brain drain and that some of the more senior individuals who have been seconded from police forces are now starting to be taken back into them. That is happening partly because of financial pressure in NCIS to reduce the budget and partly because of the process of moving towards SOCA. It would be worrying if the transfer, which will not happen for 18 months, had an impact on the effectiveness of NCIS as individuals leave before the new agency is established. I hope that those who respond to the debate will tackle that and confirm that the Committee will be able to examine the work of SOCA as well as that of NCIS and that that organisation will be scrutinised properly. The Home Secretary is nodding and that is welcome confirmation.
	The shadow Home Secretary made some strong points about Iraq. Perhaps they would have been more powerful if they had been made during the debate on Iraq rather than after the event. He hoped that the Butler inquiry might be able to answer some of the questions about the interrelationship between the intelligence services and Ministers, but I do not believe that it can provide those answers. That is precisely why Liberal Democrat Members decided not to take part in the process. Somewhat belatedly, Conservative Members made the same decision. I fear that, when the Butler report is published next week, we will all be asking for Butler mark 2 because it will pose a set of questions about Ministers' interpretation of information. Everybody will be dashing around studios demanding a further inquiry to ascertain how Ministers established that information. The Government could have settled this issue once and for all by wrapping those two issues up at the same time.
	I am grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming that he still has an open mind on the issue of intercept communications. Like the shadow Home Secretary, we have moved on this issue. Indeed, I think that all three parties have done so. I have definitely come to the conclusion that it would be better to try to produce proper evidence against people rather than holding them without trial, so the sooner we can complete and see the evidence from that review, the better.
	I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not give us any indication of the progress, if any, made at his summit in Sheffield this week with his counterparts from mainland Europe. I would have been interested to hear what progress had been made on shared intelligence and, particularly, on issues such as DNA and biometrics. We look forward to receiving more information about the progress that is being made on working with our European counterparts in those areas.
	I do not want to drag up the issue of identity cards now but, while we would be very much in favour of shared intelligence and ensuring that such information was passed around, and while the idea of biometric data on passports is worth looking at in principle, I want to put on record again my concern that the Government are implying that biometrics and ID cards would have a role to play in tackling terrorism. I can seem them having a role if the cards were compulsory, or perhaps in regard to the ability of certain individuals to claim benefits, but I remain unconvinced—particularly after spending a couple of days in Madrid last week talking to some of the people involved in these matters—that an ID or biometric card system would create a serious means of preventing terrorism in this country.
	I have one final question, which relates to page 23 of the report, on which the Committee raises concerns about the way in which some of the interviews of detainees took place. The wording is not clear to me, however. The report looked at the way in which detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo Bay had been interviewed, and the response begins by saying:
	"Interviews of detainees conducted or observed by UK intelligence personnel have"—
	and then goes on to list some concerns about the way in which those interviews had taken place. It is not clear to me whether this section confirms that interviews were conducted by UK intelligence personnel in a way that would go against the Geneva conventions. The wording is not clear, and it is important that we receive clarification on that point.

Michael Mates: Just to put the hon. Gentleman right, may I tell him that we received that letter from the Prime Minister just a few days before our report went to the printers? We put it in as he wrote it, and our answer is in paragraph 79, which states:
	"We will take evidence on all these matters."
	So the hon. Gentleman must wait until we report, and then he will know.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He clearly wants to ask the same questions as I do. We hope that there will be a chance to do that, but we could circumvent that process if the Foreign Secretary were able to clarify that matter when he responds to the debate today.
	I said earlier that these are difficult matters, and I want to assure the Home Secretary that, where possible, we shall give cross-party support on many of them. However, it is important that we also probe and test the Home Secretary if we believe that legislation at times crosses into areas that we are trying to protect.

Alan Howarth: The annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee offers much praise, makes some criticisms, and includes some of our usual painstaking passages of educational material. We are happy to praise MI6 and the Foreign Office in respect of Libya. Alongside that has been the unravelling of the A. Q. Khan network. We praise the establishment of the joint terrorism analysis centre, which is a model of inter-agency and interdepartmental co-ordination and commitment. We were particularly impressed by the speed with which that institution was set up, and by the quality of what it does. The one problem that it has had is that so many people have beaten a path to its door—it has become a popular destination for "spooks' tours" from all over the world—that it has been interrupted in the performance of its duties more often than it might have expected.
	Such good co-ordination is a particular strength of the British system. We see it in the Joint Intelligence Committee, where the heads of all the agencies sit with representatives of other Government Departments. The committee centralises the assessment of intelligence material from a whole range of sources. We are pleased that a new system for establishing requirements and priorities has been achieved, and that the ministerial Committee on Intelligence and Security was engaged in that process. That was something for which we had been calling for some considerable time.
	SCOPE, the computerised database of intelligence data linking 10 different Departments and agencies that is now in development, represents exactly the right way to go. Of course, there are all the problems of big public sector computer systems, and we have raised some questions about training, security and costs, but we have no doubt that it represents the right way to go.
	We make criticisms of the low priority given to counter-espionage. We took a peace dividend after the cold war, but China, Russia and others continue to seek to find out what they usefully can about things that go on in Government and in business in this country that we ought to keep secret. On a visit that the Committee made to the United States of America recently, we were strongly reminded of instances of penetration of the American agencies, and it was impressed on us how important it is to look after our crown jewels, and to keep our secrets secret.
	In the report, we chart the fall in the share of Security Service resources going to counter-espionage from some 20 per cent. in 1999–2000. That share is bottoming out at about 10 per cent. today—as the Home Secretary told us—thanks to the promise of a 50 per cent. increase in funding for the Security Service over the next four years, which is extremely welcome. This has been a calculated risk on the part of the Home Secretary and the director general of the Security Service, and we were pleased to understand from our discussion with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that he understands the nature of the risk that was being taken.
	The Committee regrets that not enough resource has hitherto been committed to helping the intelligence agencies play their part in addressing serious organised crime. We saw some remarkable models of inter-agency co-operation in dealing with drugs crime at Key West and in Jamaica, and some similarly excellent interdepartmental co-operation centred at Vauxhall Cross relating to various other kinds of serious organised crime. However, those good arrangements were undermined by the lack of resource going into them, when so much more could be achieved. It is very important that we should achieve more in that direction, and investment in this area would certainly yield a quick return. There is a spectrum between organised crime in the drugs trade, for example, all the way through to terrorism. We therefore welcome the commitment of extra resources that the Government have now promised, and we look forward to the serious organised crime agency
	"building on the intelligence capability already available across law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies".
	We draw attention to collection gaps, which are—irritatingly, for right hon. and hon. Members—asterisked in the report, those places that are not named but where we would like to see a stronger intelligence effort. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee this week of today's threat, which he defined as
	"a new form of global terrorism combined with repressive, unstable states that proliferate or engage in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development".
	The world is a small place in terms of the capacity of terrorists and proliferators to move quickly from one part of it to another. It is very large, however, when we come to consider how to cover it comprehensively with intelligence, particularly when we bear in mind the length of the lead time to establish an effective intelligence capacity in any particular place.
	It is easy to be wise after the event, and we suggest that the east African bombings in 1998 should have been a wake-up call to the world. It appears that not until 11 September 2001 did the world begin to wake up to the nature of the new threat. I was looking last night at a book called "Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey", written by V. S. Naipaul, which I see that I read in 1982. As long ago as that, Naipaul described a journey through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, in which he found Islam in ferment, and more and more people seeking the comforting simplifications of religious fanaticism. He wrote:
	"This political Islam was rage, anarchy".
	For 20 years after that, however, western leaders continued to embrace Saudi Arabian leaders and to ignore Wahhabism. For 20 more years, we were comfortable with the existing concept of threat, our modes of threat analysis, and the ways in which we derived the requirements for the intelligence and security agencies. We took that peace dividend after the end of the cold war, and were guilty of complacency in the 1990s.
	The enemy is an Islamic fundamentalism that is uninhibited in its willingness to use violence: sophisticated, implacable enemies, many of them trained individually in particular technical skills in the west, who exploit the values of our liberal society, our concern to preserve such values as privacy, a refusal to discriminate on grounds of race or religion, and the right to preach. If we are to protect ourselves physically against this kind of threat, we will need huge cultural and institutional adjustments, but if we make those, will it be a victory for us or for terrorism?
	We agonise as to how to respond and deal with threats of this nature. What the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said just now on that subject was helpful. We find it difficult and painful to judge what we are to do about the authorisation of surveillance, the use of intercept material in judicial proceedings, the development of policy on immigration, naturalisation, passports and ID cards, and the difficult question of detainees, to which we drew attention, and which has been referred to in the debate. The Prime Minister's letter in paragraph 78 of our report describes a detainee hooded and shackled during an interview, which was not reported at the time, and refers to other complaints, austere conditions and inappropriate treatment, and concerns passed on to the US authorities. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) has just said, we will take evidence. But as the Home Secretary has said, Parliament will need to think hard about where we set the boundaries in these matters.
	Iraq confronted us with a question: to what lengths are we willing to go when intelligence tells us that there is a threat from WMD? There have been, of course, passionate disagreements within our country and internationally. That issue cannot be ducked, and certainly not by political leaders Our Committee reported on the intelligence and assessments made in relation to Iraq, and the House debated our report, albeit perfunctorily. Others have trawled these waters: Lord Hutton, the Butler committee, and Mr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq survey group, a real expert in these matters, and a revisionist, who said:
	"It turns out that we were all wrong."
	Too much may be being read into those words. Kay accepts that Iraq was at an early stage of renewing its nuclear weapons programme, that it had removed the elements most vulnerable to inspection but kept its scientists and technology, and that research continued on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The missile and unmanned aerial vehicle programmes were still moving ahead, and the weapons programmes were designed to allow future production. If Saddam had had the political opportunity, he would assuredly have resumed those programmes.
	Kay thinks that we were wrong to take the view that there were stockpiles, but he also says that there was no evidence either way on that. He describes the difficulties. Given the body of intelligence, over 15 years, it was hard not to conclude that Iraq, in his words,
	"was a gathering, serious threat to the world".
	Saddam lied systematically, the scientists lied, the inspectors caught them lying and in breach of resolution 1441, so the analysts assumed the worse, perhaps wrongly in some respects. But a corrupt, terrorised society was very hard to read, and there was not enough human intelligence to enable us confidently to assess the motives and intentions of the Iraqi leadership at all points.
	Were errors made? Possibly; but given what the intelligence community saw and knew, or thought that it knew, it still seems to me that it reached the only conclusion that it reasonably could. The looting and deliberate destruction of documents and material that took place following the failure of the coalition to achieve physical security in Iraq after 9 April means that the Iraq survey group may never establish the facts as to that period. Perhaps there were no stockpiles, but I do not doubt that the dangers to the region and therefore to the world were very great, that Saddam would have resumed his programmes, and that, already, the risks of proliferation through willing buyers meeting willing sellers in Iraq were very great. If there are questions about the integrity of UK officials and politicians taking decisions in this area, I believe that they are entirely unfounded.

Michael Mates: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) and the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), beside whom I sit in the Committee Room, and have done for the past seven years—I think that I can say that without asterisks—while we get on with our work. As it was referred to from the Front Bench, it is worth emphasising that in the 10 years since this Committee was formed—I have had the honour of serving on it for all that time—it has been a zone entirely free of party politics. It does not enter into our work at all, and I am grateful that it does not. Indeed, on one visit that we made abroad, after we had been having discussions with some opposite numbers for seven or eight hours, the question of partisanship came up. We asked them to guess which parties we all came from, and they got every single one of us wrong—to the chagrin of some of us. There we are.
	In the report there is a short essay about the limitations of intelligence, which I commend to everyone in the House and outside it. For far too long, people have wrestled with a faint impression that intelligence can tell us everything, and that if we put enough resources into it, and do enough things correctly, we will know what we need to know. That is not the case, and I will not surprise anyone or breach any confidence when I say that in a report that will be published next week, that subject is likely to be raised again. It is important that all of us get it across to the outside world that intelligence really does have limitations, particularly now, since the end of the cold war and the break-up of the two great blocs who aimed almost all their intelligence and security resources against each other. The threats to us today do not come, as they used to, from just one bloc; they come from a disparate group of rogue states, terrorist organisations and countries who are secretly engaged in trying to build up stocks of weapons for illegal and improper use, be they chemical, biological or nuclear or the missiles necessary to deliver them.
	There is not one target for the agencies today but many. Assessing the relative importance of those targets and directing to them resources that are inevitably limited is much more difficult than ever before.
	One difficulty with the agencies' work, which I know is experienced by many hon. Members, is that because all their activities are conducted within a ring of secrecy, scrutiny must of necessity take place within that ring of secrecy as well. As a result we in the Committee must trust the agencies and those who work for them not to abuse their powers, and to be honest with us about what they have done. In the House, we must place a certain amount of trust in Ministers to conduct themselves honourably and not to misuse the agencies or the intelligence they provide for partisan or other purposes. Trust is at the heart of intelligence work.
	Some Members do not place their trust fully in our Committee, because it is not a Select Committee. Those who feel like that should look at the record of our work throughout the last decade. I do not believe that we can be criticised for having been unwilling to ask awkward questions of both agencies and Ministers. We have always taken a robust approach, and the fact that we have not always said what some people want to hear does not mean that we have not investigated issues fully.
	It is the misuse of intelligence that undermines trust in the agencies and reduces the authority of their statements. That trust must be maintained, even if the price is that Ministers—and, indeed, we in the Committee—cannot always make public the intelligence on which decisions have been based.
	I want to raise two small points, or at least points that figure in the report in a relatively small way. The first, which has already been mentioned, relates to the risk that has been taken with regard to counter-intelligence. It has been acknowledged by Ministers, and I think we are right to remain concerned about it. Some years ago, a former head of the CIA said, "There is only one thing worse than finding a spy in your organisation, and that is not finding a spy in your organisation." The risks have been taken because of the reduction in funding suffered in the 1990s, as has been acknowledged, but it is important to point out for future reference that there is no such thing as a quick fix. It is no good suddenly providing more money and expecting everything to be back where it was before, the following morning. It takes months, indeed years, to build up the necessary experience, the necessary organisation, and the right way of conducting counter-intelligence activities before they are up and running properly again, and it will be some years before the agencies are back to where they were before they reduced their staff.
	Postal screening has also been mentioned in passing. Our report expresses concern, and I must say that I have found the Government's response a touch complacent. If I could specify the concerns and the risks I would have the entire House and, I suspect, the entire country behind me, but I cannot do that: if I described the risks, those who wish us ill could use the routes available to them to avoid the risk of being caught out. What I can say is that it is a question of more co-ordination, and of waking up to a problem that is very real before we see another major incident. I am thinking of the occasion on which 100 or so weapons were sent through the post from Florida to Northern Ireland. Quite by chance, an operative in a postal screening depot saw what was happening and stopped it. That is public knowledge because there was a trial and people went to jail, but I must tell the Government that the situation does not just need looking at and—what is the word?—reviewing; it requires action.
	I hope that the House will think that the report is balanced and does not skate over problems. I commend it, because I know that all of us in the Committee have done a lot of work on it.

Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who makes such a big contribution to the Committee's work. As he said, party politics does not enter into our work.
	In last year's annual report, the Committee said that according to the Joint Intelligence Committee al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests. As the House will know, al-Qaeda has existed for many years, having evolved from those who travelled to Afghanistan in the 1980s to join resistance to the Soviet Union. It is thought that attacks on the interests of the United States and its allies by groups linked to al-Qaeda can be traced as far back as 1992. The subsequent decade saw several attacks linked to al-Qaeda, including the bombing of US embassies in east Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, the atrocities of September 2001 of course, and the Bali bombing of October 2002. It would be a mistake to see al-Qaeda as a fixed organisation run according to the direct orders of Osama bin Laden. It is an open question as to how—if at all—the activities of the various groups are co-ordinated, and whether anyone in bin Laden's inner circle is influencing the planning of attacks. But the phenomenon can exist without a disciplined root-and-branch organisation.
	The National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has concluded that al-Qaeda has fundamentally changed since it lost Afghanistan after 11 September. It is far more decentralised, with operational commanders and cell leaders now making command decisions previously made by bin Laden himself. Instead, bin Laden is the inspiration for the movement, which is a collection of groups with differing characteristics, and agendas that vary according to the politics of each region.
	I want briefly to consider the impact of the war in Iraq on international terrorism. Al-Qaeda was responsible for more than a decade of terror prior to the launching of military action by the US and the UK against Iraq in March 2003. When this House—and, indeed, most of the world—was debating whether it was justified to take that military action, one consideration was the impact that it would have on international terrorism. It was reasonable to assume that launching a war in Iraq against the will of the international community would be detrimental to the international coalition that had formed against terrorism. It was also a reasonable hypothesis that the war in Iraq would cause an increasing number of individuals to identify with al-Qaeda's aims and methods, which in turn would mean more attacks.
	Last September, the ISC report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction stated that the Joint Intelligence Committee had itself assessed that the threat from al-Qaeda and associated groups would
	"be heightened by military action against Iraq".
	The judgment was whether that was a risk worth taking. The ISC discussed the threat with the Prime Minister, who recognised the danger that attacking Iraq would provoke what he called
	"the very thing you were trying to avoid".
	However, his judgment was that the threat posed by the potential combination of terrorism and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could not be ignored. He told us that concern that military action might bring about an increased threat from al-Qaeda must not lead us to allow
	"a nexus to develop between terrorism and WMD in an event".
	It is still too soon to gauge the medium or long-term effect of the war in Iraq on international terrorism. In the shorter term, in Iraq itself we have seen a terrible series of acts of violence. As the Foreign Affairs Committee noted in its report entitled "Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism", which was published at the beginning of the year,
	"a dangerous alliance of foreign fighters with terrorist allegiances and elements of the former Iraqi regime has been forming inside Iraq".
	According to the US State Department's revised global terrorism report of 2003, there had been a slight rise in terrorist attacks in 2003 compared with the previous year, and the number of attacks and casualties in the middle east had doubled. Closer to home, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the war in Iraq could indeed have made terrorist attacks against British nationals and British interests more likely in the short term.
	But what is the risk to the UK from al-Qaeda? The al-Qaeda threat is certainly at a higher level now, and we should assume that terrorists intend to carry out an attack in the UK. We have been spared, so far, the horror that was visited upon New York, Bali and Madrid, to name just three. It is not clear why that is so. For example, it is not clear to what extent that is due to effective action by the various agencies. The House will remember the widely publicised arrests following the discovery of half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser in a west London warehouse in March. No one present believes that the ammonium nitrate was intended for agricultural purposes.
	There is the related question of accessibility. Did the terrorists attack Madrid, rather than London, because Madrid was perceived as a softer target, or because they happened to have the capability on the ground to mount the attack in Madrid? Do the terrorists not have the resources here—yet—to bring a planned attack on the UK to its conclusion? The fact that there has been no attack in the UK to date provides little comfort. The director general of the Security Service told the ISC that
	"the absence of an attack on the UK may lead some to conclude that the threat has been reduced or been confined to parts of the world that have little impact on the UK. This is not so."
	The House will be aware that the Security Service stated publicly that
	"al-Qaeda cells and supporters of affiliated groups are known to be active in the UK",
	and that
	"a terrorist threat to the UK may also come from overseas."
	We know about the long lead-in time for planning an attack. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concluded that the idea of launching the 11 September attacks was first put to Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that an initial list of targets was drawn up as long ago as spring 1999.
	As I said, although we cannot be sure why there has not been an attack on the UK to date, we can certainly be confident that al-Qaeda-linked groups would like to carry out such an attack. It is imperative that our counter-terrorism efforts are comprehensive and robust and that we take all practical steps to ensure that we can deal with an attack. On that latter point, the Civil Contingencies Bill is designed to strengthen the Government's emergency powers and update the framework for civil protection work. Significant additional funds have been made available for counter-terrorism.
	In discussing that issue, there is an understandable tendency to focus on secret intelligence, but much of the information used in counter-terrorism is in the public domain—in the broadcast and printed media. BBC Monitoring is the organisation that scrutinises such open-source information. It is part of the BBC World Service and it tracks more than 3,000 sources in 100 languages covering about 150 countries. BBC Monitoring receives, translates, analyses and conveys the information to counter-terrorist staff. Such open-source information provides a context within which secret intelligence data can be placed. Among the customers of BBC Monitoring are defence intelligence staff, the assessment staff, intelligence agencies and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
	The ISC found that BBC Monitoring provides a valuable service both to Government Departments and to the agencies, and that it adapted well to the need to report on the growing number of terrorist-related media sources. However, the funding from its stakeholders declined over the last decade, most steeply in 1996, and has been frozen since 2002, despite the extra demands upon it.
	The ISC also learned that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was reviewing its allocation to BBC Monitoring with a view to making significant cuts. The Committee made representations to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and I was fortunate to secure an Adjournment debate on the matter earlier this year. Subsequent to our interventions, the Government have agreed to maintain funding for BBC Monitoring at its current level until the end of 2005–06, during which time a strategic review is to be carried out. The ISC welcomes the decision not to cut the funding provided to BBC Monitoring, as we believe that it would be a great mistake to reduce the money available to that valuable resource.

Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend share some of my concern in reading the Government's response on that point? The Government say that they anticipate that
	"the review will ensure that the overall level of funding should reflect the value of BBC Monitoring to each stakeholder."
	Is it not important that the overall level of funding should reflect the value of BBC Monitoring to the Government as a whole? Is it acceptable for individual stakeholders to make their own judgments about the extent to which they should opt in or out of that commitment?

Gavin Strang: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who expresses the point precisely. We must be alert to that. He is absolutely right that we should view the matter across the board. We can appreciate that there will be arguments among the different bodies that fund the organisation and that Departments are under pressure over spending. However, isolated assessments of the contribution that BBC Monitoring makes may understate what is required. My right hon. Friend will know about the significant co-operation between BBC Monitoring and the Foreign Broadcast Information Service of the US. We get a good deal from that. If we are serious about the need to strengthen our guard against international terrorism—I think that we all are in this House—there is no case for cutting the resources of BBC Monitoring.
	In conclusion, the whole House recognises that the threat to the British people from international terrorism is much higher than it has been in recent years. More resources are being devoted to the intelligence necessary to increase the protection of our people, and I congratulate the Government on that. However, there are certainly no grounds for complacency. We need to be ever more vigilant and do all that we can to reduce the risks.

James Arbuthnot: Apart from the issue of counter-terrorism, the main work of the Intelligence and Security Committee during the year—and the main intelligence interest for the country—has been on the war in Iraq. We did a separate report on that, which came out in September last year. Inevitably, this year's annual report contains an element of mopping up. Nevertheless, the Committee's work has been quite hard and very varied.
	I want to pay tribute to the Committee's Chairman and Clerk, and to its staff and investigator who have worked extremely hard to help us all. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang). I do not think that it breaks the official secrets legislation to say that he brings a certain laconic wisdom to the Committee, and to everything that he does. Above all, I pay tribute to the intelligence and security services. As many have said, they do an enormous amount to protect this country and its interests.
	I shall be very brief, as there is no need to repeat what the report says. I shall deal with only three points. The first is the funding of GCHQ, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, referred.
	Paragraph 52 of the report deals with the huge cost increases examined by the Committee's report for 1999–2000. We note that resource accounting for GCHQ has always been a bit of a problem but, for the first year in three years, GCHQ has produced unqualified accounts. Most private companies would consider that to be of little moment, but I think that we should welcome it with open arms. It is very good news, but it is difficult to get the bean counting right and the Committee will continue to keep an eye on the matter.
	The report deals with the eventual vacation of the Oakley site. We express concern that resourcing had not been provided for that. In their response, the Government say that the site will be vacated by 2012, at the latest. There is always a dilemma in such matters: do we have two sites, and therefore an element of planned redundancy, or do we have one site in the interest of efficiency and cost-saving, but lose the element of redundancy that is sometimes needed? The pendulum swings from decade to decade on that dilemma.
	My second point has to do with detainees. I refer the House to page 23 of the report, in which the Prime Minister's rather disturbing although deadpan letter is reported. It states that interviews have
	"with the following exception . . . been conducted in a manner consistent with the principles laid down in the Geneva Convention."
	The report does not actually say that we are dealing with Guantanamo bay. However, having raised that subject, I think that it is right to draw attention to the fact that the US still does not accept that the Geneva convention applies to the people held there. The effect of that is that they are not entitled to legal representation. The failure to apply the Geneva conventions to those people and to give them access to lawyers is precisely what has given rise to the sort of behaviour that the report describes.
	I welcome the Supreme Court's recent decision that the Guantanomo detainees should be subject to the rule of law. Frankly, that should come as little surprise to anyone with an interest in justice or fairness, but the failure of the US willingly to give those detainees access to lawyers and to the rule of law has fuelled deep resentment across the world about the US—and therefore about Britain's behaviour in allying itself with the US. That has fuelled resentment in the United Kingdom against the US. It is a divisive approach, and it should stop. The letter from the Prime Minister states:
	"The detainee showed no signs of distress and made no complaint of being hooded or otherwise during the interview."
	Well, he was shackled. It is not clear from the letter how the detainee would make signs of distress apparent—

Michael Mates: Perhaps he rattled his chains.

James Arbuthnot: Indeed. As we say in the report, we intend to take evidence on all those matters and there is much for us to consider.
	My final point concerns counter-espionage and the reduction in the proportion of the espionage budget spent on it. That is a particular worry in relation to the espionage against economic targets in this country. Our companies' secrets—our intellectual property, which, in a highly developed country such as ours, is the keystone of our prosperity—are being stolen and we are not doing enough to protect them. When we went to the US, we discovered that it treated intellectual property and commercial secrets as part of the critical national infrastructure. As the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) said, our intellectual property should be regarded as part of our national infrastructure, and I welcome the interest that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury showed in that point when he appeared before us. If we connect the vulnerability of our computer systems to our economic vulnerability, it is plain that we have much to do to catch up.

Andrew Tyrie: I pay tribute to the work of all those who seek to protect us and whose work largely goes unsung. The brevity of that remark should not be interpreted as an indication of the strength of my feelings, and I echo the sentiments that have been expressed time and again this afternoon.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee might have been an interesting parliamentary backwater, but the war has tested it to the full. That is because, first, the country was taken to war almost entirely on the basis of intelligence information provided by several institutions that the Committee has the responsibility of overseeing. The second reason the Committee is now centre stage is that the war was undoubtedly the most divisive event in British politics since Suez. I was, and remain, deeply sceptical about the need for military action—certainly at that time. Many people sense that we became involved in the invasion without sufficient clarity about our objectives and real purpose. It is vital that we now do our job to express the electorate's questions and articulate their concerns.
	The third reason why the Committee is now centre stage is that it has become increasingly clear that the Government have no intention of co-operating fully with the efforts of many parliamentarians in finding out what really happened in the run-up to the Iraq war. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will not challenge that remark. The Committee described the Government's response to its report on weapons of mass destruction as "extremely unsatisfactory". The Foreign Affairs Committee has documented the extensive obstructionism that it has encountered in several reports. I shall not go into those in detail unless challenged. As a result, the minimum level of required democratic scrutiny after a war has not yet been achieved by this Parliament.
	We still do not have adequate information to answer some basic questions, which I shall list. Did Saddam Hussein really present a threat when we went to war? Was the Prime Minister being clearly told about that threat at the time? Was the threat imminent enough to require action? We have had some information that helps us to provide answers to those questions, but not enough.
	Much less information is in the public domain about several other crucial questions on assessing the Government's action. What assessment did the Government make before the war about the consequences of the invasion of Iraq for the middle east and about the likely effect of invasion on moderate Muslim opinion in the middle east and elsewhere? What assessment was made before the war of the task of post-war reconstruction in Iraq? What assessment was made of the prospect of holding the country together and moving it to democracy? What assessment was made of the effect of invasion on other rogue states and their likely behaviour? What conclusions did Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, draw from those assessments?Above all, what assessment was made before the war of its likely impact on the western alliance as a whole, and on the strength of the collegiality of interest in the west that is the bedrock of our security?
	The plain fact is that for the most part Parliament has been thwarted in its efforts to find answers to those and similar questions. Much the same obstructionism is evident in Washington. The Executives of the world's two greatest democracies have exhibited an unremitting determination to deny parliamentary or congressional access to information about the decision to go to war. They have been equally careful to ensure that the remit of the independent inquiries they were forced to set up was as narrow as possible. The damage arising from that has been colossal.
	First, the Executive's lack of candour has accelerated the decline of public confidence in politicians. It has extended the electorate's cynicism about domestic politics to the foreign arena. In fact, the Prime Minister's determination to thwart a full examination of the issues has damaged his Government's credibility far more than anything that was likely to have been revealed had there been more candour from the start.
	Secondly, our failure to get to the truth has eroded the public's respect for democratic institutions, and especially for Parliament, which is obviously of concern to us. It should be our role to force candour, but we have not, so far, succeeded.

Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman will know that in our report on Iraq and WMD we did not set out to judge whether the decision to invade Iraq was correct. The purpose of the report was to examine whether the available intelligence that informed the decision to invade Iraq was adequate and properly assessed and whether it was accurately reflected in Government publications. We were not denied access to any information in drawing up the report, and the hon. Gentleman may be misleading the House if he is suggesting that we were denied information on some of the points that he mentioned.

Andrew Tyrie: When the Committee decides to try to make the kind of assessment that I am suggesting and decides to make public that assessment, the public will feel much more reassured about the extent to which information has been made available to the Committee. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the information required to answer the second series of questions to which I alluded was also made available to the Committee?

Kevin Barron: Whether to invade Iraq was an issue for policymakers. It was also an issue for the House, in a debate and in a vote. For the Committee, the important thing was whether policymakers—one of whom has just entered the Chamber—were given the right information prior to those decisions being taken.

Andrew Tyrie: I do not want to detract from the work of the Committee in any way, as it has done an outstanding job, as I was about to point out—I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is now smiling and seems much happier than he was a moment ago. What Parliament needs to do is to get to grips with those fundamental policy issues; we need the evidence in our hands to enable us to form judgments. We do not have that evidence. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has seen all the evidence. Perhaps he has seen the Foreign Office assessment of the extent to which the war might have destabilised the middle east. Perhaps he has seen an assessment of the likelihood or otherwise of creating a democracy in Iraq. I do not know. Perhaps he can tell me in general terms whether he has seen such assessments.

Kevin Barron: If the hon. Gentleman reads our report on Iraq, he will see that we saw some assessments of the likely effect. Indeed, one of them received a lot of public comment: people asked what would happen if Iraq were invaded and WMD got into people's hands for use by terrorists throughout the world. So we saw some of the evidence, but clearly not all of it. I do not know whether it exists in the form that he suggests.

Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman has made my point: he says that he has seen some but not all of the evidence.

Kevin Barron: If it is not there, I cannot see it.

Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman cannot even be sure whether the evidence is there. I should like to move on. I have given him ample opportunity to comment on my remarks.
	The third reason why we should be so concerned about what has gone on is that our failure to get to the truth, and the public's perception that we have failed to do so, have made us less secure as a country. That may be true of America, too. Both President Bush and the Prime Minister asked us to take the Iraqi expedition on trust. Next time there is a security threat, when we have to rely on their judgment, that trust will be much less willingly bestowed. Just as bad, potential opponents in other parts of the world will be able to see that weakness and exploit it. That is why the shortcomings of parliamentary scrutiny have not just weakened our democracy, but are making this country a less safe place.
	The Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib scandals, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) referred, illustrate how much better off we would be if we had more effective parliamentary scrutiny. I am pleased that the Committee will investigate that and take evidence.
	For over a year, I have pressed the Government to tell me what steps the UK has been taking to discover whether people were being tortured at Guantanamo bay. What triggered my concern was information that an acquaintance of mine gave to me a long time ago. He found out that people were being deported from Guantanamo to Egypt to be tortured more comprehensively there. He asked me to raise that issue, which I did. I was shocked by that information, and I have been trying ever since to bring pressure to bear on the British Government to raise it with the Americans. I have had a long exchange of correspondence with the Foreign Secretary about that.
	Of course, the efforts of one Opposition MP are only a pinprick. None the less, it is possible that if a parliamentary Select Committee or the Intelligence and Security Committee had taken up those issues earlier and pursued them remorselessly, some of the abuses might never have taken place and much less damage would have been done.
	Those abuses have undermined the very values that the west is seeking to export. They have done incalculable damage. Our apparent double standards will resonate for years.
	This is not just a moral issue for the UK; it is, of course, a legal one, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire said a moment ago. We have a duty of care under international law to uphold the welfare of all prisoners who we may have handed over to the Americans. I am told that we have handed over 341 prisoners to the Americans in Iraq, some of whom may be in Abu Ghraib. I should be grateful to the Foreign Secretary if he said whether that was the case. I have tabled several questions to the Secretary of State for Defence today to ask him about that very question. What happened to those 300 or so detainees and what steps have the Government taken to monitor their welfare? I will write to the Foreign Secretary about that again.
	The experience of the past 18 months shows that our democracy needs much better scrutiny after wars than has taken place on this occasion. We need to try to restore the electorate's trust in politicians and Parliament. That is a big challenge, and I shall mention only a few things that could be done, some of which are alluded to in the report. First, it would help if the Prime Minister would trust Parliament a little more. He should realise by now that his obstructionism over scrutiny on Iraq has cost more in lost credibility than any embarrassment that he has been spared. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary may have thought they had done well in refusing many of the Foreign Affairs Committee's requests for papers and people and by relying instead on Lord Hutton after David Kelly's death. In fact, far from letting the Government off the hook, it has only reinforced public cynicism.
	The same is true of the Government's response to David Kay's evidence to a Washington committee—the creation of the Butler investigation. It may well turn out that the Government would have done much better to use the Intelligence and Security Committee to do that job of investigation rather than hoping that Lord Butler's narrow terms of reference would keep him away from the most sensitive spots. The Prime Minister should have shown much more candour from the start.
	It is our job in Parliament to do more. We need to show that we can be trusted with confidential material. That is where the Committee has done so well in demonstrating that parliamentarians could be trusted over the past decade. We can also learn something from American experience. Much nonsense is talked about how much more effective congressional committees are than our own. The truth is that they are often stymied by even more partisanship than many of ours, and more obstructionism by the Executive. None the less, they have one advantage: they really can see whom they want to see and, if they are persistent enough, they can get hold of a lot more documentation. Things are often negotiated on the basis of protocols, with the Executive setting out the rules of engagement for the use of information and access to it. Perhaps we should consider doing the same under the Standing Orders of Parliament.
	On an issue as fundamental as going to war, there is also a case for much closer collaboration between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee, possibly also involving the Liaison Committee. Today is pretty much the 10th anniversary of the ISC. I strongly welcome its creation and I think it has done a great job. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that there must be trust in the intelligence world. That trust has taken a severe knock over the past 18 months. We have a very big repair job to do.

Elfyn Llwyd: I add my congratulations to the Committee and its members for their endeavours and the hard work that they have evidently done over the past few months. Undoubtedly, this is an important debate, despite its being held on a Thursday. At paragraph 145, the report refers to its own report of September 2003, "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments". The Committee then believed that it had seen all the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments relating to Iraq from August 1990 to September 2002. The Committee now has to say, unfortunately, that that statement proved erroneous: in May this year a further eight JIC papers were handed over relating to WMD in Iraq and United Nations inspections. A subsequent check revealed that those papers were not given to the Committee at the time, which, understandably, caused it "considerable concern".
	The report states:
	"We have read the recently provided papers. We are satisfied that knowledge of them would not have led us to change the conclusions, including those that were critical, in our Report. However, we might well have included further material from these papers . . . We have received an apology and we accept that there was no deliberate attempt to withhold information from us. However, we are concerned that some internal systems and record-keeping within the Cabinet Office Intelligence and Security Secretariat are defective and we will return to this issue."
	The Government response to the Iraqi weapons report was delayed until February 2004. The Committee noted that it was not satisfied with the response, emphasising that there were only four key conclusions, while either rejecting or failing to address fully many of the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. It said:
	"We regard this as extremely unsatisfactory and we recommend that the government explicitly address each of our recommendations and conclusions in future responses. Our dissatisfaction was increased by the government's decision to allow such little parliamentary debate on two such significant reports."
	The report highlighted the limitations of intelligence, saying:
	"Failing to highlight the uncertainties, and gaps associated with the limited amounts of intelligence collected, could mean too firm an assessment was made, which in turn would influence policy-makers disproportionately."
	I am quoting the report extensively because I believe that the Committee has taken a robust approach and is doing a good job. I hope that everything necessary to enable the Committee to draw the proper conclusions is made available to it the first time of asking, and that its members do not have to burrow for information, as Back Benchers often have to. That is a matter of concern to the House generally. Weapons of mass destruction are not a side issue, but a core issue at the very heart of the Government's decision to invade Iraq. That there were shortcomings in the provision of information on that, of all subjects, is a cause of great concern.
	I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) about the detainees at Guantanamo bay. The Prime Minister responded on the important matter of the treatment of prisoners, and the Committee, to its credit, has referred to what he said.
	"The Prime Minister has informed us that, with one exception, all interviews conducted or observed by UK intelligence personnel have been conducted in a manner consistent with the principles laid down in the Geneva Convention".
	He added that
	"some detainees questioned by them have complained about their treatment while in detention",
	but
	"the UK intelligence personnel never witnessed any evidence of detainee abuse of the type that the US authorities have acknowledged has occurred".
	Unfortunately, what the Prime Minister said does not square with what the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence has been saying in response to detailed questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and others. My hon. Friend has consistently raised the issue in debate, questions, interventions and correspondence. In a written question to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend asked
	"when in September 2003 the practice of hooding detainees in Iraq was stopped."
	The answer was:
	"An amended Standard Operating Instruction was issued on 30 September 2003 detailing that the use of hoods on apprehended persons was to cease. This had been preceded by a verbal instruction several days earlier."—[Official Report, 30 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 358W.]
	Paragraph 23 of the report details the whole issue, and I am mindful of the fact that the Committee states at paragraph 79 that it will take evidence on it. I welcome the fact that there will be further inquiry.
	On 28 June, in his response to a question from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Minister of State stated:
	"We are not aware of any incidents in which United Kingdom interrogators are alleged to have used hooding as an interrogation technique." —[Official Report, 28 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 142W.]
	That is far from satisfactory, bearing in mind the fact that at the same time the Minister was telling my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr that the technique was being banned. The problem is compounded by the fact that on 10 September 2003, Combined Joint Task Force 7 produced a document entitled "Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy"; the UK input to that document was from the deputy commander of the UK military forces. The document is the authority for the use of hooding, sleep deprivation, stress techniques and white noise; it came to light during recent US congressional hearings.
	I do not expect answers today, but I want to put on the record several questions. Was the Intelligence and Security Committee given a copy of the document, and if not, why not? Was the United Kingdom's role in the preparation of the document limited to the military commander, or was further authority given higher up the chain or in Cabinet? Who authorised the commander to sign up to the document? It is difficult to believe that the Government did not know of the document—one condoning a practice banned ever since a Northern Ireland case against the United Kingdom more than 15 years ago. It was inconsistent to condone the use of the technique until September 2003 while, at the same time, the Minister of State denied that it was used and, to contradict himself, said that it was banned from 30 September, the very month in which the UK military signed up to the document.
	I am raising those serious issues because the Committee will take further evidence, and will undoubtedly scrutinise the position carefully. Was the reference to information from the Secret Intelligence Service at paragraph c on page 23 a reference to the coalition document? If not, why not? I suspect that reference was not made to the document and, with hindsight, I can understand why, but I hope that the Committee will continue its detailed and earnest investigation into the issue to unravel the truth of what happened.
	More generally, with reference to page 23, what redress, if any, is there for detainees who suffered assaults and battery as a result of the illegal interrogation techniques? Is a criminal investigation under way? On the issue of Abu Ghraib, the Prime Minister has clearly stated on several occasions that he did not know of the inhuman practices at the camp until this year. I do not take issue with that, but apparently the United States Government knew about a year before. We have been told that the Prime Minister and the Government did not know anything of the Red Cross report until this year, but if that is the case—I will accept that it is to avoid further argument—what steps are being taken to question the officials who either failed or declined to pass that information on to the Government? The stock answer is that information is received and passed on day in, day out. However, on a matter as important as the conduct at Abu Ghraib, someone should have passed the information on, so the stock answer will not wash.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Committee will continue its important deliberations, and can do so without being hindered by the withholding, whether wilful or not, of important information germane to its inquiries.

Julian Lewis: Recently, a senior figure in the anti-terrorist world addressed a conference on security issues, and pointed out that the United Kingdom and other target countries face a terrorist threat that aims to cause destruction, not in single streets, as the IRA did, but in entire neighbourhoods and, if possible, entire cities. He predicted that the threat would persist for the next 10, 15 or even 20 years, but on a note of grim optimism he predicted that life would go on and a new sort of normality would be established after hard, remorseless effort by society as a whole and anti-terrorist services in particular. I am sure that his prediction is right, and history bears it out. In the period between the first and second world wars, it was widely believed that society could not stand up to the pressure of aerial bombardment. In fact, society stood up to it throughout the blitz in the United Kingdom and, more surprisingly, throughout the much heavier attacks in the latter days of the Third Reich, when German cities were utterly devastated.
	There is a tendency, because we live in peaceful times, to underestimate what society can cope with in war. No free society can have absolute security against a small group of determined saboteurs—that was one of the Home Secretary's messages in his thoughtful opening remarks. To those remarks one could add that no repressive society or dictatorship could have absolute security against such a threat, either. Again, one casts one's mind back to the occupied countries of Europe and to the French Resistance in particular who, despite enormous totalitarian forces of repression ranged against them, were still able to mount effective sabotage—or terrorist attacks, as the German occupiers would have called them.
	What one can do is try to focus on the known possessors of weapons systems which, if they got into the hands of would-be saboteurs or terrorists, would enable them to wage the sort of campaign that that senior anti-terrorist figure was predicting they would try to wage, to devastate whole neighbourhoods or even whole cities.
	In that connection, the most interesting paragraph of the report for me was paragraph 91 in the section dealing with Libya. It states:
	The detailed intelligence on Libya . . . collected by the UK and the USA from all sources over a significant period of time, enabled the UK and USA to demonstrate to the Libyan authorities that they knew about their WMD programmes."
	It then adds the curious comment:
	"Consequently, when the inspectors went to Libya the Libyan authorities, while they tried, were not able to hide their programmes and full disclosure was eventually achieved. This was a major intelligence success."
	Yes, it certainly was, but that was the first indication that I had had that there had been an attempt by the Libyan authorities to go on with a policy of concealment, even after they had come forward and said, "We want to get rid of our weapons of mass destruction. Come in and help us do it." I should be very interested to know more of the story behind that interesting comment, and I congratulate the Committee on having teased out that titbit of information.
	It must be said that the terrorist movements with which we are concerned are extremely patient. I think I am right in saying that there was a period of about eight years between the two attacks on the World Trade Centre, the second ultimately being the successful one. It is all too easy for us to go into one of those periods between attacks and begin to become a bit complacent. Indeed, that senior anti-terrorist figure said that his principal concerns were complacency in society, which he described as a very great problem, and the importance of creating greater public understanding of the wide range of dangers and the long-term nature of the overall threat.
	What the Libyan business illustrated in the wider context is that something sinister was going on under the surface. A report on BBC News Online on 23 May retails how North Korea had been involved in sending uranium to Libya. It states that the International Atomic Energy Agency
	"had found evidence that Pyongyang provided Libya with nearly two tons of uranium in early 2001."
	A spokesman for the IAEA, Mark Gwozdecky, told BBC News Online that the investigation
	"'spans three continents and involves entities or individuals in at least eight countries.'"
	That was all linked to the plot by A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, to sell nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
	Another report on the BBC on 28 May is headed "UN continues Libya nuclear probe" and states that the IAEA has said that
	"questions remain about Libya's nuclear weapons programme, despite the promise last December to scrap it."
	A report from Associated Press back in February commented on a firm in a place called Shah Alam in Malaysia. The firm, ironically enough, is called SCOPE—nothing to do with the new system that was described earlier in the debate for intelligence collation in this country. It is a precision engineering firm that was part of the network and was involved in machining the parts of the centrifuges that the rogue regimes, in particular Libya, planned to use to construct their bombs. Worryingly, at the end of the report the company's spokesman said that if it received an order similar to the Libya shipment, it would have no reason to turn it down. The spokesman commented:
	"Milling and cutting is the same today as it was before".
	It is not good enough for the Government, or even for the Committee, periodically to state that successes have been achieved, that terrorists have been disrupted and that we have been saved by the good efforts of the security and intelligence services. Something more than that is required. If we are to obtain the greater public awareness, concern and realisation of the long-term threat, which senior counter-terrorist figures feel to be necessary, we must have authoritative accounts of what has been going on as soon as the information can be revealed. We should not have to depend upon putting together a jigsaw from individual, isolated press reports, such as I have been quoting. We should have a system whereby the Government publish from time to time, perhaps in the form of an annual report, an account of what can be revealed about those operations that have been frustrated or exposed.
	In the brief period remaining, I want to address some of the remarks about Iraq. When I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his thoughtful speech, he said, "I am sure that you do not agree with half of it." I said, "You are right, but there is one thing that I do agree with in particular, and it is the most important thing—the British people must always be told the truth." If a democratic Government do not tell the British people the truth, even in a good cause or because they think that they have a good reason not to do so, they will destroy the trust on which their support depends.
	I have said this before and I will say it again: I wish that the Government had not fought shy of telling the British people the real reason why war against Saddam was essential. It was not because Saddam was about to attack anybody; it was not because he had attacked anybody; and it was not even because of his humanitarian record of atrocities. Those are the traditional justifications under international law, as it currently stands, for intervention.
	War against Saddam was essential because the events of 9/11 showed that the world now contains groups that would unhesitatingly use WMDs, if they could get them, and thus cannot be deterred. This has lowered the threshold for intervention against rogue regimes that have a track record of trying to obtain WMDs. That probably does not conform with international law, as it was explained to the Government at the time that they took the decision, and they therefore felt that they had to massage the facts.
	International law is not static; it evolves, and Governments must help it to evolve. It would have been better if our Government had helped international law to evolve by saying clearly to the British people that we did not know what Saddam did or did not have, but after 9/11 we could no longer take the chance.

Patrick Mercer: I apologise to the House in advance for perhaps having to leave a little early.
	It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), many of whose points I will endeavour to discuss, although I do not expect to do so as lucidly as he did.
	About six weeks ago, 1,500 lb of fertiliser was found in west London. I gather from open sources that it would have been most likely to be turned into home-made explosive and used in a number of car bombs, probably around west London, or possibly in north London. The discovery of that potential explosive represents a very considerable success for the security agencies that picked up those of our enemies who were involved. On the back of the discovery there came a series of arrests, mainly of Pakistanis, some domiciled in this country and others from abroad.
	About two weeks ago, I had the enormous privilege of being briefed by the high commissioner and his staff in Islamabad. They hinted that the operation was much more complex than anything that the open sources in this country had been able to tell us. They told me, or rather hinted, that there had been a very successful operation by British agencies in combination with local agencies in Pakistan. They also said that a much worse event, the details of which I was not told, had been planned, which, if it had gone ahead, would have devastated large parts of this country. I can only pay tribute to the agencies that are prepared to carry out such operations with such courage. The high commissioner told me, "If you are talking about prevention versus cure, homeland security starts here in Islamabad, in Kabul or wherever—that is where the real operations are carried out."
	I want to try to tease out one or two points about the balance between prevention and cure. If an operation can be prevented, so much the better, but the fact remains that the head of the Security Service and the commissioner of the Metropolitan police tell us that an attack on this country is all but inevitable. To use a wartime phrase, the bomber will always get through. Then, it referred to the Luftwaffe, but the analogy is not lost today. I will not use the old saw about always being lucky, but there is no doubt that we have been extraordinarily lucky so far. It needs only one terrorist to get through for the whole complexion of our security structure to be changed.
	The Committee's report says that the Security Service's website includes information about
	"the threat from terrorism and details of protective security measures available".
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East, I wonder why the details on that website are not made far more widely available to the public. Why are we not told as much as we possibly can be told? Why are we not told, for instance, what is the national state of alert?
	The counter-argument, of course, is that to do so would scare the pants off people. However, it has been done in the past. MI5 and the Metropolitan police carried out a very successful public information campaign against the Irish Republican Army in the 1990s. That gave the public detailed indications of what they were to look for and how they could help the security agencies and services to thwart terrorism. Why are the offices of the national security advice centre not more accessible to the public? Why do not the Government choose to follow the example that is being set by the Metropolitan police and British Transport police in relation to the current poster campaign? Why do not the Government choose to enrol every responsible member of the public as another pair of eyes and ears for the wider police family?
	The report states:
	"We recommend that the threat to the United Kingdom's critical national infrastructure and vulnerability to electronic and other attacks should be examined by the JIC and considered by Ministers."
	If we continue to be vulnerable in that way, should we not consider streamlining the intelligence that we have to handle? Doubtless, the Butler report will make many good points about that.
	How much time do our security agencies spend dealing with people who should not be here? Should we have a proper immigration policy, which would save so much of the time of those important men and women? The United States deals with that through a Department of Homeland Security. It has pulled together its Government agencies. In this country, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport, the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and a host of others might deal with the sort of problem that I have outlined. They would have to refer to the head of the Security Service, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, the head of GCHQ, the head of Defence Intelligence Staff and the head of assessment staff. We are told that a security and intelligence co-ordinator is now pulling all that together, backed up by only a small civil contingency secretariat to deal with curing part of the problem.
	Where does the responsibility of one agency start and another one stop? Where does one Department's responsibilities begin and another's end? Is it any wonder that intelligence has been, to put it charitably, over-analysed, and that the wrong conclusions have been drawn? We need one central figure and one central Ministry to deal with the matter. The problem will not get easier and the money that we need to spend on it will increase every year.
	Let me make some small, sub-tactical points. It is interesting that an officer who is posted from one part of the intelligence community to deal with Islamic fundamentalism receives no training in the nuances of the Muslim faith and creed, the problems that surround Islamic fundamentalism, the history behind it and the outlook. He or she is expected to pick up the whole discipline on the job. That is most odd when the humblest private soldier receives extensive training in dealing with the problems that he faces before deploying to, for example, Northern Ireland, Iraq or Bosnia.
	The report provides some detail about the intelligence cycle, which is interesting and reminds me of parts of my basic training years ago. We are told that the collection plan is set centrally for the agencies, but the report does not make clear where the audit trail for the collection plan lies. Each agency is responsible for auditing its success. That cannot be objective; it must be subjective. Surely there is a better system for assessing success v. failure.
	In the report, C mentions collection gaps. He says that the SIS is now "behind the curve". We have heard today that funding for MI5 will be increased considerably. What about the other agencies? The Chancellor said yesterday that it was the Government's "first duty" to defend the people of Britain. He continued:
	"I will make available the resources needed to strengthen security at home and take action to counter the terrorist threat at home and abroad . . . Those who wish to cut in real terms the budget even for security will need to answer the British people . . . We will spend what it takes on security to safeguard the British people."
	Those are fine words, but what about the civil defence grant to our local authorities? What about the anomalies in the equipment that fire, police and ambulance services hold? What about the fact that our firemen who back up the immediate response units have received no training in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks? What about the fact that the civil contingencies reaction force—the only addition to manpower to deal with the curing rather than the prevention part of the problem—have been seen manifestly to fail in the face of the overstretch of the regular forces? And what about the fact that our armed forces are to be cut yet again? Fine words indeed.
	I shall end by quoting from paragraph 8 of the report, which states:
	"Terrorism is currently the biggest threat to the national security of the UK and its interests and the Agencies are operating in an extremely difficult and hostile environment. The Prime Minister stated in a speech on 5 March 2004:
	'the [security] threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before.'"
	We are blessed with outstanding intelligence agencies, and this report has been enormously helpful, but I do not see a Government who are ready to rise to this challenge, or who are willing to face
	"a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before."
	I see a Government who are mired in complacency.

Joyce Quin: It is a pleasure to follow the two previous speakers, the hon. Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) because, although they are not members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, they have always taken a keen interest in its work and that of the intelligence agencies.
	I had not intended to speak in this debate, partly because I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and it is good to hear contributions from other Members. Also, given the time limit on Back-Bench speeches, I was conscious of the fact that there might have been too great a demand by other hon. Members to speak. However, I note that that has not been the case, so I shall take this opportunity to add a few comments to those that have been so well made by my fellow members of the Committee. I want to endorse strongly the words spoken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) when he introduced the report on behalf of the Committee, and to pay tribute to the work of our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor).
	The report rightly highlights a number of areas. It flags up circumstances in which the agencies have experienced success, and it is good that several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for New Forest, East, referred to what has happened in Libya, which the report flags up dramatically as a great success. It was a great success for the intelligence agencies, and for the Government and the Foreign Office, following the negotiations in which they took part, and I am very pleased with the way in which they turned out. As far as the intelligence agencies are concerned, that is a rare of example of our being able to give public credit, and for that reason, it is important to highlight it in this debate.
	The Committee believes that the agencies need to be properly resourced, and we welcome the increase in funds that has been made available to them in recent years. I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), which was that it is important for the agencies to use the best of this country's talents by recruiting as widely as possible. Indeed, several of those issues are highlighted in our report. We refer to the need to bring in talented people from a variety of backgrounds, and we encourage the agencies to consider—without compromising security—issues such as the nationality rules, which have been in operation for a long time. Those rules have a certain rationale but, in a multicultural, multi-ethnic Britain, we would not want the agencies to lose out on being able to recruit people who perhaps do not rigorously fulfil the traditional nationality requirements.
	In that sense, we were all pleased when GCHQ, for example, showed some flexibility in its recruitment so as to attract people who could play a useful role in that organisation, even if they did not comply with all the security requirements to the highest level. It will be useful for the other agencies to look at that kind of flexibility in recruitment.
	One area that has not been touched on extensively in this debate is that of international co-operation and the work that our intelligence agencies carry out in co-operation with agencies in various different countries, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be able to address that point when he responds to this debate.
	It is very clear from our work, and it is well known in the House, that the allies with whom we work closely in intelligence are ones with which we have had very close co-operation for a very long time: the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so forth. Without doubt, those links are tremendously important in the modern world. But it is also right that the agencies, and the Government, who are ultimately responsible for the work of those agencies, consider extending our range of allies as widely as possible, while not compromising sources or security.
	Certainly, in the European Union, there is a good deal of co-operation, particularly with those countries that have long-established intelligence agencies, with which we have worked over a number of years. Recently, within the European Union, there has been increased interest in intelligence, because of some of the tragic events that have occurred: most recently, in Madrid. I welcome the appointment of the co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries, whom I know from my days in the European Parliament as an energetic and capable person.
	While EU collaboration is very useful, I would not want to see it adopt an unwieldy, bureaucratic form or in any way disrupt the existing partnerships and arrangements. At such a difficult time for security in the world, we do not want disruption; we want the existing networks to work even better and even more smoothly. We should take that very much to heart.

Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend content that the provisions in the proposed European Union constitution covering these matters will be satisfactory to us in terms of our national security?

Joyce Quin: Indeed, I think that our Government have very satisfactorily negotiated the European constitution and I find quite puzzling some of the criticisms levelled against them in that respect.
	Within the new European Union, we have some important allies. A number of countries that have recently joined the European Union have been particularly helpful in intelligence matters, and have worked closely with this country, even before they became part of the European Union. For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be able to assure us that relations with those new countries, which have recently joined the European Union, will be beneficial to intelligence as well as to other matters.
	In the situation in which we find ourselves, however, we need to consider and build up alliances sometimes even in unlikely quarters. I hope that the Government will also be able to reassure us on that point. We all remember how much responsibility was put on the Indonesian services at the time of the Bali bombings. They are dealing with a very difficult situation, given the scattered territory of Indonesia, and the existence of some extremist groups there, some of which are prepared to adopt fanatical means and terrorist ways of operating to try to achieve their goals. It makes sense for us to try to build up co-operation with a country such as Indonesia, perhaps using some of our expertise to help to train and develop the intelligence services in such a country. Obviously, Australia is geographically much closer to Indonesia, and has very good links with it. It makes sense, however, given the challenges that that country faces, for a number of other countries, including the UK, to seek to be as helpful as possible.
	Clearly, if international co-ordination and co-operation is important, so is having the best co-ordination within our domestic system. I agree with what a number of my colleagues have said in terms of the very positive establishment of the joint terrorism analysis centre, the work that it does, and the way in which our agencies have been particularly successful in working together and sharing information to the best possible effect. I also agree with those who said that it was important for Ministers to meet occasionally to discuss these issues on a cross-departmental basis. I became convinced of that during events in Afghanistan, when I observed links between Foreign Office concern about terrorism and Home Office concern about drugs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) referred not just to terrorism but to the drugs trade, and spoke of the importance of co-ordination in the tackling of drugs problems in the Caribbean. I think that if Departments—including the Department for International Development, the Home Office and the Foreign Office—worked together more effectively and provided even a modest increase in resources, that could help a great deal in the Caribbean.
	Intelligence has been centre stage ever since 9/11. I believe that the Committee's report and its recommendations recognise the crucial role played by the intelligence agencies. We are counting on the Government to go on responding positively to their needs, thus ensuring that we can all enjoy a safer future.

Michael Ancram: I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who cannot be here for the winding-up speeches. He notified the Foreign Secretary that he would be unable to do so, for specific reasons.
	I congratulate the Intelligence and Security Committee on its work, and on the effort that it has put into the production of this and other reports during the year. It has undoubtedly been a busy year for the intelligence community, and hence for the Committee. The Committee fulfils a vital role in ensuring that there is democratic oversight of our security and intelligence services—a role that is not always recognised as widely as I think it should be. Debates such as this are important in that respect. I also pay tribute to the work undertaken by members of the security and intelligence services—often at great personal risk, as I know, and often inevitably unknown to many people—in protecting us as we go about our daily lives.
	We have had a fine debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on being a more than competent substitute for the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). I entirely understand why she could not be here today. The right hon. Gentleman presented not just a good report but an impressive future work load. It is clear that the Committee will not be looking for things to do over the coming months. He made a particularly important point in connecting the risks to our intelligence with gaps in collection, and called for further resources for the security and intelligence services. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).
	The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) made a number of important points, but one of the most important—and I think that both of us Opposition Members agree on it—was his observation that it is the duty of Opposition parties to probe and ask questions, and that they should not be accused of disloyalty for so doing. If we appear unhelpful sometimes, it is because that constitutional role is incumbent on us, and we would be remiss if we did not fulfil it. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary will have a long time in which to wind up the debate. I am sure that he will be able to make all the comments he wishes to make from a standing rather than a sedentary position.
	The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) was critical of the weakening of counter-espionage. I think that that is a lesson we have learned since the end of the cold war. I hope that the increased support for the intelligence services that has been announced will go some way towards putting things right.
	The right hon. Member for Newport, East talked about the world being small for terrorists and large for intelligence services—a point that was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who discussed the limitations of the intelligence services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about what the terrorist is seeking to achieve. I know that this subject is something of a sore, but the chilling statement made by a member of the IRA—he said, "You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once"—is absolutely true. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, the situation is not quite like the bombers getting through; they got through because there was a very large number of them. In this case, we are talking about specific, targeted exercises which we have to spot and deal with individually. If we fail, we will see a terrorist incident. That is the background to so much of what we are discussing today.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire surprised me when he spoke of someone failing to recognise which party he belonged to. Perhaps he will vouchsafe to me in privacy to which party they thought he did belong; that question has been puzzling me ever since he mentioned the incident. He also talked about the limitations of intelligence, and it is indeed the duty of the Government to ensure that those limitations are minimised as far as possible.
	The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) provided an important and valuable analysis of al-Qaeda's decentralisation and the increasing threat posed by it. That was a good reminder that the threat continues. Although we hear of successes in the campaign against international terror, such terrorism is still there and we certainly cannot afford to become complacent.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), in one of his usual succinct contributions, talked about the funding of GCHQ and pointed out that this year, it produced unqualified accounts. I welcome that good discipline, which also helps the morale of the service. He also talked about the Prime Minister's letter concerning the detainees, which is printed on page 23 of the report. I have been pursuing this issue through written questions and I am delighted that the Committee is going to follow it up. Important questions remain, and they need to be answered urgently.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) underlined the feeling that the various processes are not achieving what we need to achieve if we are to recreate public confidence. We need to feel that we have not just the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We need to wait and see what next week's Butler report comes up with, but we must insist that until we have the truth, public confidence will not be restored. We will go on working to get that truth, however long it takes.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about the missing eight Joint Intelligence Committee papers that were later handed to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and which are referred to at recommendation DD. I accept that there was no deliberate attempt to withhold information, and that what happened did not alter the conclusions. However, if the Committee is to feel confident in its dealings with the intelligence services and the JIC in particular, and if the public are to have confidence in the Committee's findings, it is important that this failure to provide all the information be rectified. If that failure was a systematic one, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that it does not occur again.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East raised a very important set of questions about the political scale of terrorist operations. We sometimes think of terrorist operations in terms of what we experience from, and in, Northern Ireland; but as we learned on 11 September 2001, we are now talking about terrorism of a very different scale. He rightly pointed to some of the failures in respect of being ready to deal with such a disaster, should it occur.
	How will society cope? That question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, and a balance must always be struck between giving the public sufficient information to allow them to help in the fight against terrorism, and not frightening them. If the public are frightened, to an extent the terrorist has succeeded. I agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East that we have yet to strike the right balance in that respect. I hope that we continue to consider how much more information we can give in order to recruit the public in the fight against terrorism.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark also talked about homeland security, a subject on which he is our spokesman. He rightly pointed out that there is a strong case for having one Minister devoted to that area, with proper back-up. We believe that that would provide a better answer to some of the problems that he identified.
	The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) pointed out that we had a great success with Libya. As she knows, I had my doubts about the speed with which we were dealing with that country and I had some suspicions about the ship that was arrested last September after the negotiations were in process, which showed that at that date there were still ongoing intentions relating to the construction of nuclear weapons. Equally, I agree that it was an intelligence success—and at a time when the intelligence services are feeling pretty demoralised about some of the things that have happened recently. It was an important success and we should all welcome it and pay tribute to the intelligence community for the work that was done.
	The remainder of my remarks will be directed towards the work of the Secret Intelligence Service and the collection, subsequent analysis and use made of intelligence material. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary dealt with the other issues fully and I do not wish to repeat what he said.
	Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction, coupled with public confidence in intelligence and its use in the lead-up to conflict, remain of crucial importance to the conduct of—and, indeed, confidence in—the United Kingdom's foreign policy. Paragraph 3 of the ISC report notes that military commanders reported that they had been
	"well served by the intelligence community during military action."
	That is an important finding, which I welcome, because it is a testimony to the good tactical intelligence that we possessed. However, significant questions remain over the gathering and analysis of intelligence at a strategic level, particularly over weapons of mass destruction.
	I have to say that doubts about the intelligence on WMD have been exacerbated by the shifting position of the Prime Minister over the past 22 months, which the ISC has, quite rightly, pursued. I need to remind the House of those different positions because we still need to ask what they were based on. On 24 September 2002, the Prime Minister told the House that the SIS
	"concludes that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which"
	as we all know,
	"could be activated within 45 minutes . . . and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c.3.]
	On 18 March, speaking in the House, he said:
	"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years . . . Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd".—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 762.]
	Those were the words that he used—"palpably absurd". On 8 July 2003, in front of the Liaison Committee, he said:
	"I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong . . . I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes".
	That was a change in emphasis rather than a change in nuance. Then, before that same Committee this year, he said, earlier this week:
	"I have to accept that we have not found them and that we may not find them."
	I think that we must ask about the basis on which those different statements were made. Either they were misinterpretations of the intelligence or the intelligence was changing. If we are to have confidence in the intelligence, we need to know the answer to that question.
	On "Frost on Sunday" last weekend, Sir Jeremy Greenstock went further when he said:
	"There's no doubt that the stockpiles we feared might be there are not there."
	He went on to say:
	"It's only again with hindsight . . . that the evidence is just not there. We were wrong on the stockpiles, we were right about the intention."
	I am not questioning the sincerity of any of those particular statements, but I am asking what it was that allowed them to change so dramatically. Those are not differences of nuance, but inconsistencies of fact. Such unexplained changes of belief at the heart of the Government on this most crucial issue of WMD cast doubt on the accuracy of our intelligence—and, more particularly, on how that intelligence was used.
	In paragraph P of its conclusions, the ISC expressed concern that in their response to its report, "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence and Assessments", the Government emphasised only four key conclusions and effectively provided an inadequate response. I hope that the Government will not merely apologise and say that they will not do it again, as they did in their response to the report. I hope that they will respond to the original questions point by point. Until they do, the doubts to which I have referred will continue to exist.
	One of the basic weaknesses of intelligence gathering in general in the post-cold war world, and certainly in operations in the middle east, appears to have been the over-reliance on electronic intelligence, and in some cases on individual and uncorroborated sources, rather than on sustained human intelligence—that is, men on the ground who understand the region and speak the language fluently. That is one area in which weaknesses have been identified.
	We have heard much today about intelligence requirements in the current circumstances, and the need to resource them financially and in terms of manpower. Although increased resources have been available since 9/11, there is no doubt that the shift of focus from international terrorism and al-Qaeda to Iraq caused great strains on that manpower. In particular, does it not appear that the greatest shortfall was in Arabic speakers?
	The recently declassified Congressional report states that there were only 20 linguists at the National Security Agency and GCHQ who were extremely skilled in Arabic. Does the Foreign Secretary agree? At a time when so much of the threat is coming from that part of the world, as many speakers today have said, that seems to be a deficiency.
	Do the Government have plans to reopen the internationally respected Arabic language school at Shemlan near Beirut? It provided exceptional language training to British intelligence officers and diplomats, as well as important background studies, until its closure in the late 1970s. If not, is there some plan to recreate something similar that will provide that resource in the future? I think that that will be necessary.
	Is the Australian Parliamentary Committee right to assert that intelligence reports on Iraq from the US and the UK in the six months before the war increased tenfold compared with the eight months previously? That would indicate a genuine shift of intelligence focus away from al-Qaeda that could have serious implications for the international fight against terrorism. In light of the genuine and current threat from terrorism about which we have heard today, we need real assurances that those deficits will be urgently rectified.
	Given those shortages, is it not time that we looked for support from our allies, as the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West suggested? What are our current relations with French security services? Is it true that, in the past 12 months, the French have offered to collaborate with the SIS on human intelligence and Arabic speakers? If so, what has been our response?
	Is it true that the offer was turned down, with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister, and that the Americans are now benefiting from that help by the French? If so, what were the reasons for declining the offer? What effect has that had on the relationship between our intelligence services? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to respond to that.
	It is clear that errors of interpretation may have occurred between the raw intelligence—such as it was—being fed into the analytical processes of the SIS and DIS, and then the JIC. The decisions that were made were not made in a vacuum, free of expectations at a political level.
	Paragraph 68 of the report states that the Committee was content with the process by which Mr. John Scarlett was appointed as chief of the SIS. However, the report does not say whether the Committee was content with the appointment itself, or with its timing. I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley was caught by the clock and was not able to finish his explanation of that matter. I do not want to point the finger at any specific person, but it is an important question that we need to consider.
	Press speculation over the past week about the forthcoming Butler report tends to support my view at the time that it was inappropriate to make the announcement in advance of the report. In that context, Dr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq survey group, appeared on yesterday's "Newsnight" programme. He has been quoted by the Government with great approval on many occasions in the past, but he made the following rather surprising comment about George Tenet:
	"He took the honourable step, as well as the pre-emptive step, of resigning rather than waiting to be replaced. Obviously, in your system you draw a different conclusion"
	and
	"decide to promote the individual".
	Does the Foreign Secretary have any response to Dr Kay's comments?
	In conclusion V, the Committee says that it
	"believes that candidates for the position of JIC Chairman should be drawn from as wide a field as possible."
	The Government say that they agree. I go a little further. The position is a most sensitive one, the independence of the person holding it must be above question, and there can be no inference of politicisation. It is and should be a position of assessment and counselling between those who provide the intelligence and those who must decide how to use it. There will always be pressure on whoever holds that office to lean towards one or the other. That can best be avoided by appointing someone who has come to the effective end of their civil service career and cannot be accused of seeking to secure future preferment. I look to ex-ambassadors and senior civil servants who carried out that role in the past very well.

Alan Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just quoted Dr. Kay. Will he acknowledge that David Kay insisted that analysts were not pressurised by their political masters? In Dr. Kay's analysis of what may or may not have gone wrong, he rules that out as any kind of explanation.

Michael Ancram: Dr. Kay has talked about the environment in which the analysts were working. I am not making a political point, but there are times when political expectations can be raised by the statements made by senior politicians that put pressure on those who are making the assessments to try to find intelligence that will be helpful and coincide with those statements. It is that type of pressure that whoever becomes Chairman of the JIC will have to be capable of avoiding. Senior civil servants or ex-diplomats, such as those who have held the post in the past, are able to do that more effectively than those in the course of their careers.

Kevin Barron: I was interrupted earlier when I was about to say that it was the Committee's belief that the next Chairman of JIC should be appointed from as broad a background as possible, not restricted as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the former Chairman who will take over at SIS was not from the background that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes.

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has got my drift. I am not keen on the idea of opening the position to anybody. This is a specific job that has to be done by someone with enormous experience, not least of considering issues objectively, and remaining unswayed by influences from either side, because influences will always come from both sides. The person appointed must also be unaffected by considerations of their future career.

Kevin Barron: I agree about the width of experience needed. The appointment should not be made on the basis of what job an individual has done or is doing. That should not be a restriction on who is appointed as Chairman of JIC and that is the Committee's point.

Michael Ancram: I hope that we would agree on that. The key is public confidence in the person who is appointed. That confidence would be better achieved if the public could see that the appointee did not have connections with one side or the other and had the experience to avoid such connections while holding the job. That should be seriously considered, because the appointment of John Scarlett was the first time that an active member of the intelligence service was put in that position.
	In conclusion, it is vital to our national interest that public confidence in our intelligence services, in the intelligence they produce and in the use made of it by Government is restored as soon as possible. We all know that confidence in all three areas has been damaged. We need confidence in the way that intelligence is gathered and corroborated, confidence in the assessment process and the qualifications entered into it, and confidence in the political judgments that flow from it. We will have to wait and see whether we learn more about that from the Butler report next week. Given its terms of reference, we may or we may not. I shall not speculate on that today.
	I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire point out once again that the misuse of intelligence undermines confidence in the security and intelligence agencies. It is important that we restore that confidence by showing that any such misuse will not continue in the future.
	Whatever the outcome of the report may be, there are certain givens that cannot be avoided. In the end, the key to intelligence is the use made of it. I learned the value of good intelligence during my time in Northern Ireland. I learned also that what matters most are the strategic judgments made by Ministers on the basis of that intelligence. In the end, the buck stops with Ministers.
	In this case, the buck stops with the Prime Minister. He made the statements. He took the decisions. He must accept the responsibility. At the end of the day, he must explain the inconsistencies and why he took the decisions he did. He owes it to our intelligence services and to the British public to do so, and perhaps the Foreign Secretary, who privately, I suspect, shares much of our concern, can start that process now.

Jack Straw: I join other Members in paying tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We all understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) was unable to take part in the debate and hope that her son's graduation ceremony was successful. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for so effectively standing in for her this afternoon.
	At this moment of unconstrained time, may I make a plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the Chairman or the substitute Chairman of an important parliamentary Committee is making a presentation, physically from the Back Benches but on behalf of Parliament, special consideration be given to whether the standard time limit should apply?
	Today's debate has highlighted again the important role that our intelligence and security agencies play in both informing Government policy and protecting British citizens at home and abroad. They help to keep drugs and international criminals off our streets, to protect Britain from terrorism and espionage and to counter threats to our economy and our financial institutions. As we heard from an Opposition Member, they give vital support to the operations of the British military, often in difficult conditions.
	For different reasons to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, but none the less imperative ones, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot be in the Chamber at present—as his shadow cannot—but he has already pointed out that our intelligence services played a crucial part, alongside our diplomatic efforts, in persuading Libya to renounce weapons of mass destruction—one of the rare examples of public success for their mostly, inevitably and necessarily unsung work. They also help to illuminate threats to and opportunities for British interests around the world.
	Like every other Member who has spoken, I pay tribute to the men and women of Britain's intelligence and security services. Despite often intense pressure and the constant need to adapt to the evolving nature of terrorist and other threats, they serve with great distinction and courage—to my certain knowledge—in often difficult and dangerous circumstances.
	I particularly pay tribute to Sir Richard Dearlove, whose term as head of the Secret Intelligence Service comes to an end this month. He leaves a modern and flexible service, which is better able to meet today's security challenges. I have had the pleasure of working with Sir Richard during the three years in which I have held this office and I saw a great deal of his work during part of the period when I served as Home Secretary. I pay a personal tribute to him and thank him for all that he has done. His successor, for whose appointment I take responsibility, is John Scarlett. As the Committee records, he was appointed after a rigorous and proper selection process and he has the ability and experience to build on that legacy.
	As if on cue, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rejoined us, because I now want to pay tribute—as did he—to the outgoing Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens. It was my privilege to appoint Sir John to his position about five years ago and I am sure that it is the view of the House, across all party boundaries, that he has filled that position with very great distinction at a time of considerable challenge to the police service.
	Today's debate has inevitably focused on the issues of the moment raised by the Committee's report, and I shall deal with as many as possible of the detailed points made by hon. Members in a moment. The Committee's work involves looking at the intelligence and security services in the round, including the broader question of the direction of the agencies' work in the future.
	This is now the eighth year in which I have taken part in this annual debate, and these are among the most mature and considered debates that I take part in or listen to in Parliament. As I listened to the debate, I thought back to the great arguments that took place in the 1980s, which many of us remember, about whether it was proper to allow Members of Parliament to scrutinise the work of the intelligence agencies. That was a question of not only whether that was proper, but whether hon. Members could be trusted to do so.
	The argument began in the early 1980s, when under successive Governments the intelligence and security agencies were not averred to at all. They were appointed and run under royal prerogative. It was said that they had a charter, but it had never seen the light of day, and apart from those who had been admitted to the high priesthood—a few senior Ministers and officials—no one was ever allowed near them. Fortunately, that began to change towards the end of the 1980s, with the establishment of the Security Service on a statutory basis. That was reinforced by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which put GCHQ and the SIS on a statutory basis and established the Intelligence and Security Committee. Far from the world falling in, in my judgment the quality of the agencies' work has increased, alongside and in direct relation to the improvement in the scrutiny of the agencies by Parliament.
	What is often missed in the debate about parliamentary scrutiny is that effective parliamentary scrutiny is not in opposition to the work that Ministers must do but assists Ministers in their own scrutiny of what their Departments do. Leaving aside the agencies, how often have I been deeply grateful for the fact that, in late evening, I have had to answer a written parliamentary question and discovered something about my Department that I did not know before and that I ought to have known? In some cases, I have been asking the same question for some months and that fact had perhaps slipped the minds of those whom I had asked, but an answer was given because of the parliamentary question, and a raft of organisational or policy changes were able to follow off the back of that parliamentary scrutiny. In commending the Committee's work, I wish to say that Parliament was right to keep at it on the scrutiny issue in the 1980s, and it has been a greater success even than many of us anticipated at the time.
	Let me run through some of the issues that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked whether intercept evidence should be used in criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the position—and I have nothing to add as I entirely agree with him. I shall paraphrase his words, but in no sense do I undermine what he said. Of course, in principle, we would all like all the available evidence to be adduced in court, so that the guilty can be more easily convicted and the innocent more easily acquitted.
	If that were the only issue, that would be the end of the question, but there are very much wider questions about whether the integrity of the intercept system, its efficiency and the ability to collect intercept evidence for intelligence purposes, which can include criminal intelligence as well as intelligence against terrorists and enemies of the state, would be compromised. In the difficult, multi-variable equation that we are now considering, we have to take account of the circumstances of our legal system. It is an issue of where the balance should be struck. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we await an interim report to the Prime Minister shortly. Of course, however, I can give no direct commitment about the timing or content. As soon as possible thereafter that it is appropriate and safe to do so, the results will be made available to the Commons.

Mark Oaten: Given that other mainland European countries have overcome that problem, is the Foreign Secretary under any pressure from other European Union countries to come to a speedy resolution on this matter so that intercept communications can be used in any evidence throughout mainland Europe?

Jack Straw: I had no pressure from other European countries when I was Home Secretary and have had none since I have been Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that he has had none either. Each country differs: some barely use intercept at all for any purpose, which is a separate issue and why we are worried about their capability to deal with terrorist threats; other countries use intercept more widely. Many issues require careful consideration before we come to a view. All that lies within the context that if it is possible to arrive at a solution where intercept evidence can be adduced safely without undermining the integrity and capability of everything else being done by way of intercept, that will be fine, but we are certainly not there yet.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked about redaction, suggesting that it may have been excessive. I can say only that I know to my certain knowledge that the Committee is assiduous in ensuring that redactions are permitted only where they genuinely meet the needs of national security. Speaking from recollection, I think that the law provides that if a redaction is proposed by the Prime Minister and with which the Committee disagrees, the fact of the disagreement, although obviously not the content of the redaction, can be made known to the House. As I pointed out last year, the only time when I intervened on a proposed redaction was to refuse to allow one, rather than the reverse.
	The right hon. Gentleman also raised GCHQ and its programme. There were criticisms of the programme for building the very successful new building. Those criticisms have been answered in the response to the National Audit Office report, and most of them were dealt with as soon as they became known, which is why the latter part of the programme was successful.
	On the subject of GCHQ, I draw the House's attention to a letter sent by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, to Lord Morris of Aberavon, in which he sets out the circumstances of the discontinuation of the prosecution of Katharine Gun. In that letter, which has been placed in the Library, my right hon. and noble Friend draws attention to paragraph 72 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which states:
	"We agree that the case had to be discontinued for evidential reasons not in any way related to the Attorney General's advice on the lawfulness of invading Iraq."

Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Attorney-General came under some rather unfair criticism over that matter and that those who suggested that the reasons for the discontinuation of the prosecution had to do with the content of his advice on the legitimacy of the war against Iraq ought to withdraw what they said and should, indeed, apologise.

Jack Straw: I agree. The criticism made of the Attorney-General was completely unfounded. Anybody who knows him will know that even the thought that his integrity was in question should never have been aired.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley referred to the introduction of what, frankly, happened before, when we responded seriatim to the recommendations made in reports. That was an omission: it should have happened before, and we are sorry that it did not.
	The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) gave us an inadvertent admission of Liberal Democrat confusion, with which we are all so familiar. He talked in the round—we are familiar with that, too, when it comes to Liberal Democrat policy—but went on to talk about recognising the constraints of the real world. I welcome him to the club of the real world, and we look forward to the Liberal Democrats straightening up some of their policies in future to take account of the fact that the world has changed. If they wish to present themselves as a serious alternative Government, they have to acknowledge the responsibilities that go with that. If, however, they wish to carry on in permanent opposition, which is fine by me, they can continue in their present comfort zone, but they should not insinuate that they have any right to pass comment on those who are or those who wish to be in Government.
	I apologise to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for not being here to hear his speech. He said that trust is at the heart of intelligence gathering. That is absolutely true, and there has to be trust all round. There has to be trust within the agencies—that is why the ring of secrecy is so important—trust in those who monitor them and trust between those within the agencies and those who are responsible for them, especially senior Ministers and the Prime Minister. I believe that we have done everything we can to maintain that trust.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) asked about BBC Monitoring. He will be aware that I informed the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28 June that from 2005–06, the FCO will reduce its funding for BBC Monitoring by £2 million to £5 million per annum, but overall stakeholder funding for BBC Monitoring will remain at its current level, with the difference made up by other stakeholders and the BBC Monitoring reserve. The Cabinet Office has commissioned a strategic review of BBC Monitoring, which will report by the end of this year. Future funding will be determined by the outcome of that review.
	Several hon. Members raised the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo bay and at Abu Ghraib. We take very seriously our responsibilities in respect of Guantanamo bay detainees. From January 2002 to March 2004, seven visits were made by British officials to check on the welfare of the British detainees, and another visit is due to take place shortly. Whenever visits take place, we ensure that families are informed of the outcome.

James Arbuthnot: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has acknowledged that the United States does not accept the applicability of the Geneva conventions, while we think that the conventions should apply to those at Guantanamo bay, does the Foreign Secretary agree with the consequence, namely, that we believe that detainees at Guantanamo bay should have legal advice available to them?

Jack Straw: Yes. Speaking specifically in respect of our detainees, we have said that the provision of legal advice is a necessary part of any fair trial system—it is almost a sine qua non. The detainees there have not received legal advice, even though one or two of them are in the trial system. That is the background to the recent appeal to the Supreme Court, and it has been one aspect of our disagreements with the United States Government about the fairness of the trial process offered. We have repeatedly said that British detainees should either be tried as soon as possible according to principles that are recognised to be fair, or be returned to the UK. That remains our position and it has been the subject of considerable discussion between ourselves and the United States ever since Guantanamo bay received British detainees.
	The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked about prisoners of war who were handed over by UK forces to the United States. Three hundred and forty-one were so handed over in April 2003. The United States subsequently released all but three: two of the three were handed over to the legal custody of the Iraqi authorities on 30 June, although physically they remain in US custody, held on behalf of the Iraqis; and the other is now detained as a security internee in UK custody. I hope that that satisfactorily answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

Andrew Tyrie: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that we have an enduring duty of care towards the detainees who are still in custody, so we have a direct interest in the conditions and abuses in Abu Ghraib?

Jack Straw: I do not want to go into detail about the nature of our duty of care, but our power to hold detainees, save for security internees held under the letter from Secretary Powell to the Security Council attached to resolution 1546, ceased on 30 June. Of the 341 detainees, 338 were released by the US—so that was the end of that matter—and of the remaining three, as I have explained, one is a security internee under what amounts to an annexe under UN Security Council resolution 1546, and the other two are in the custody of the Iraqi interim Government. Our power ended, because our powers as occupying powers finished on 30 June.
	The hon. Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made comparisons with the United States. Scrutiny of the Executive in this country is, in my judgment, at least as high as scrutiny of the United States Executive. We have a very different system because we are members of Parliament, whereas members of the US Executive are, as everyone knows, constitutionally separate from what amounts to the Parliament. In this country, Ministers responsible for intelligence and security agencies—my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister and myself—are interrogated weekly, sometimes daily, on these issues, which is in sharp contrast to the position in the United States, where the Head of State never appears before Congress and rarely, if ever, gives an extended press conference. Others undertake those duties, so accountability is infinitely greater here, and takes place day by day, week by week.

Michael Ancram: And on the "Today" programme.

Jack Straw: "Today", my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would agree, is now part of the interrogation of Ministers, because it is rare for us not to appear on the programme. Long may that continue, because it is important that the public should hear us interrogated on the radio as well as in Parliament.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee provides ongoing checks on the responsibilities of senior Ministers and the Prime Minister. The questioning is tough and, to some extent, tougher than it would be in public, and its reports are there for all to see. It has been suggested that we were difficult with the Foreign Affairs Committee, but, as I said at the time, a turf war was going on between it and the Intelligence and Security Committee. As far as we were concerned, we did not withhold material from parliamentarians, but it was plainly inappropriate—and had never been suggested before—that the Foreign Affairs Committee should fulfil the role of the ISC. It was agreed in 1994 that the FAC's role should continue unabridged and unamended following the establishment of the ISC, but it was not agreed then, and neither would I agree it in the light of experience, that the FAC is the appropriate body to hold the agencies to account.
	Finally, on the parallel with the United States, a couple of Opposition Members suggested that there was a case for establishing a Department for homeland security. That case was accepted by the Government of the day in 1782—it is called the Home Office, and has operated satisfactorily ever since. The United States emulated us, but it is not necessary, in this regard, for us to emulate the US.
	Anybody who knows the system of law enforcement in the US knows that in place of three intelligence agencies and 43 police services, which we have in this country, plus the enforcement arm of the Customs and the immigration and nationality directorate, the US has 17,000 law enforcement agencies. It is a rather different situation, and even at a federal level there are many overlapping jurisdictions. One can see it on the streets of New York if one walks between the United Nations and any of the legations during United Nations General Assembly week, as the different layers of federal security personnel are advertised on the back of their jackets.
	It was necessary to co-ordinate better what those agencies were doing. There is now the equivalent of a Home Secretary. Even so, the three big agencies—the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA—almost exactly parallel the work of GCHQ, the Security Service and SIS. There are no plans, and I would strongly resist them if there were, to merge those three into a single agency.

Kevin Barron: I apologise for going back a little. On detainees, the Government have given us a positive response as regards co-operating fully with our inquiries. In his contribution, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised a number of issues and referred to reports and papers that he believed the Government have on the subject. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Committee would be able to see any or all of those papers if it considered that necessary?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend is exactly right.

Julian Lewis: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), may I say that the Foreign Secretary has been busily engaged in demolishing an Aunt Sally? It is not the position of the Opposition that there should be a separate Department for homeland security, only that there should be a dedicated Minister for homeland security, unlike the situation that existed when the hapless right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) had to combine being Minister with responsibility for homeland security with being Minister with the minor responsibility for immigration.

Jack Straw: I do not claim to have followed every nuance of the Opposition's consideration of that policy, but I suspect that it is rather like most considerations of their policy: they start off with a label, then try to fill the box, and the product often changes in between. We have a Home Secretary and a Minister with responsibility for the police services. If we had another Cabinet Minister for homeland security, that could lead to a certain duplication of effort and, far from co-ordination, a great many problems.
	I shall deal with the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs. First, there was the issue of collaboration with the French security services. Because that is an intelligence matter, I cannot comment on it in any detail, but I can arrange for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be briefed on Privy Council terms. I did not recognise the story that he told, but we seek collaboration and liaison with all the intelligence and security services with which it is appropriate to do so.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the gathering and analysis of intelligence before the Iraq war. On many of those points, the House will have to await the Butler report. However, I remind the House of two things, which come not from any intelligence report but from what we all know and saw at the time, and which are worth bearing in mind. First, the Iraqi regime had a nuclear weapons programme, a chemical weapons programme and a biological weapons programme, all of which it concealed. With respect to the chemical weapons programme, the regime not only had one, but used it.
	Secondly, on 8 November 2002, all 15 members of the Security Council independently reached the same judgment: that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security because of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its defiance of the United Nations. Those two sets of facts need to be borne in mind throughout the future consideration of how we dealt with intelligence leading up to the war.

Michael Ancram: The question concerns the statements and the intelligence. We all accept—at least I certainly do—that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at some stage, but did he have them on 24 September 2002, when the Prime Minister came to the House and said he had WMDs?

Jack Straw: I know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking, and the analysis of that question is the focus of the Butler inquiry, which will be subject to full parliamentary consideration.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No; I shall make progress to complete the debate.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes asked about Arabic linguists and whether the Beirut linguist school has been re-established. That school had to be abandoned because it was blown up by one or other of the fighting groups in Beirut at that time, and there are no plans to re-establish it. Linguistic ability is one of the outstanding merits of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the SIS and GCHQ, and our great investment in that area is far larger than that made by many comparable countries. I am personally committed to that investment in linguistic ability being sustained, especially in Arabic, and I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter.
	That concludes the response to the debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have attended it. Again, I pay tribute to the agencies, and above all thank all the members of the ISC.

Jim Murphy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MEDHURST ROW CROSSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

John Stanley: From the world of intelligence, I turn to the even more crucial issue of rail safety at the Medhurst Row rail level crossing in my constituency, outside Edenbridge. The level crossing is not lightly used, because it crosses a twin-track, cross-country railway line, which is the mainline from Tonbridge to Redhill. The line carries a substantial amount of passenger traffic and is one of the freight routes to the channel tunnel.
	Serious safety concerns have been expressed about the level crossing for a number of years, and my constituent, Mr. Roger Kennedy, wrote to me on 4 September last year:
	"I have been given permission five times in the last seven years to cross in front of oncoming trains. Last year after a meeting at this crossing with your chief safety officer at Ashford, we were all told that it would never happen again, within two weeks my neighbour was given permission to cross and was confronted by an oncoming train. Recently a friend, whilst trying to cross, had to tell the signalman twice that he thought he heard a train before the signalman realised there was a train approaching the crossing. Three months ago our gardener gained permission to cross, then crossed the line, rang back to say the gates were closed, only to find a train going through the crossing. This train must have been on his section of line when he crossed. The incident was caught on camera and Mr. Hamneill was told at Ashford, but we doubt if anything was done, because only three weeks ago the same fate befell our postman, he again was given permission to cross in front of an oncoming train."
	That letter was addressed to Network Rail, and a copy was sent to me.
	I raise the issue today because of a further serious incident on 3 March this year. That involved the eldest son of my constituent, Mr. Roger Kennedy—Mr. Alex Stedall. He, too, was certain that he had been given permission to cross and found himself crossing in front of an oncoming train.
	Before I come to the incident on 3 March, it might be helpful to the House and to the Minister if I explained the crossing procedure. Before initiating the debate, I went to the crossing and went through the full crossing procedure personally. Unlike a normal level crossing, the Medhurst Row crossing is a so-called private crossing, of which there are about 5,400 in total. It can be used by any member of the public on foot, because it is a public right of way, but those who wish to use their vehicles can do so only if they are authorised to cross at that particular crossing.
	The crossing is not like a conventional rail crossing where the gates are normally closed across the railway line and open to the traffic, shut against the traffic when a train goes past, then reopened to the traffic and closed again across the line. In the case of the Medhurst Row crossing—and, I suspect, many other private crossings—the position is reversed. In normal circumstances, the gates are open at all times to trains going up and down the line, and closed across the road. When a train goes past, the gates remain in the closed position across the road. If someone wants to take their car across, they turn the gates not across the railway line, but back across the road at right angles to the line. That means, in effect, that a train driver will never see the gates closed across his path, even though the gateway may be open to road traffic. That is a significant and dangerous feature of this particular type of crossing.
	I shall describe the crossing procedure for somebody who wants to make the crossing by car. They go to the telephone beside the closed gate, pick up the telephone to contact the member of staff in the Ashford signal box, and ask for permission to cross. If permission is granted, they open the gate that is nearest to them, folding it back away from the railway line, cross on foot over the active railway line, go to the far gate, and open it. They cross back over the railway line a second time, on foot. They get into their car. They make a third crossing, in their car, over the active railway line. They get out of their car. They make a fourth crossing back on foot over the railway line, close what is now the far gate, and make a fifth crossing back over the active railway line to close what is now the near gate. They go to the telephone, ring the Ashford signal box, as required, and report that they have made the crossing and closed both gates.
	The procedure involves no fewer than five crossings of an active railway line—four on foot and one by car. For those who are used to it, it takes a minimum of two and a half minutes. I imagine that it would take considerably longer for someone who was not familiar with it. It was a challenging experience to make five crossings of an active, twin-track railway line when I did it in broad daylight on a summer day. I would not wish to have to perform that procedure at night or in foggy or misty conditions.
	My constituents who live in the specific area that we are considering have no alternative route for reaching the main road system. The only way is to go down the private road and use the Medhurst Row railway crossing. There is no other option when they go to work, take the children to school and so on.
	Let us consider the incident that took place on 3 March. This morning in the Palace, with the assistance of Network Rail and the rail safety inspectorate in the Health and Safety Executive, I was able to look at the closed circuit television evidence of what happened. I was also able to listen to the available transcript of the telephone conversation between Mr. Alex Stedall and the Ashford signal box.
	At approximately 7.50 am on 3 March, Mr. Alex Stedall, the eldest son of my constituent Mr. Roger Kennedy, drove to the Medhurst Row crossing on his way to work. He lifted the phone and asked whether it was safe to cross. He was given permission to cross and, in the normal way, was told by the Ashford signal box to call back when he had crossed to confirm that he had shut both gates. He opened the near gate, got on the line, mercifully looked and saw the Edenbridge to Tonbridge school train bearing down on him. He got off the line, shut the gate and, a few seconds later, saw the train go past. Clearly, a fatal accident had been averted—just.
	The risk of fatality is not merely to those who use the crossing. The Minister well knows the sadly documented fact that when a train hits a vehicle, it can be derailed, with the risk of loss of life or injury to those on the train as well as those on the crossing. For the Kennedy family, there was the potential for an appalling tragedy at that moment on 3 March, because Mr. Kennedy's two younger sons were on the Edenbridge to Tonbridge school train when their elder brother came close to being hit and almost certainly killed by it on the Medhurst Row crossing.
	The incident has been the subject of considerable investigation and I have been involved in presenting additional evidence to Network Rail and the Health and Safety Executive. After seeing the CCTV evidence and listening to the tape recordings, I find some worrying aspects to the adequacy of the crucial safety monitoring equipment.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

John Stanley: First, the tape recording is incomplete; there is at least one crucial sentence missing. Secondly, the closed-circuit television evidence is unsatisfactory because the cameras are activated only by vehicle movements, not by pedestrian movements. There is therefore no CCTV evidence of Mr. Stedall walking to the telephone. There is only evidence of him when he comes close to moving his vehicle. So there is a lack of completeness there, too.
	The third area of concern is that, on the data that I have seen, there appears to be a material degree of time mis-match between the CCTV material and the timings on the tape-recorded material. This could be a consequence of computer software, but the Minister will understand that if it is not possible to rely on identical timings on the CCTV and the tape recording, it is very difficult to be certain about the time relationship between a particular telephone conversation and the passage of a particular train. Some serious questions have been raised in my mind as to the adequacy of this monitoring equipment, and I think that that will be a matter of concern for the Minister. I hope that it will also be a matter of concern for the Health and Safety Executive.
	I turn now to the main parties that have been involved in the investigation so far. My constituent, Mr. Alex Stedall, is in no doubt whatever that he sought permission to cross, using the telephone in the normal way, that he was given that permission, and that when he got on to the line, he faced an oncoming train. I have put all the evidence that my constituents have put to me to the chief executive of Network Rail, Mr. John Armitt, who wrote to me on 27 May as follows:
	"Our conclusions, again shared with HMRI, are that the evidence leads us to believe that no technical or operating failure on behalf of Network Rail occurred."
	I have also pursued this issue with the director of rail safety at the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Allan Sefton, who wrote to me in May to say:
	"I am advised that there is no reason to doubt the thoroughness of Network Rail's investigation."
	I subsequently received a letter on 25 June, contrasting with those two views, from the deputy director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Justin McCracken, in which he states:
	"Network Rail's report does contain a recording of a user of the crossing (who is believed to be Mr Kennedy's son) asking for permission to cross the line and permission being granted."
	That would indeed suggest that there was a serious failure; whether it was of a human nature or of equipment I have no means of knowing. However, that is a significant comment by Mr. McCracken.
	Having viewed the CCTV evidence this morning, I believe that it is incontrovertible—this was not denied by the Network Rail people who were there, or the HSE people who were there—that it clearly showed Mr. Stedall opening the gate, going on to the line, going back behind the gate, shutting it, and the train going past a few seconds later. Again, that would seem to me to be clear evidence that he was given permission to cross in front of an oncoming train.
	It is not surprising that Mr. Roger Kennedy has been concerned as to whether there has been an element of cover-up by Network Rail. He has made that allegation, and he has contacted the British Transport police. I have put his allegations to the chief constable of the British Transport police, Mr. Ian Johnston, who said to me in his letter of 28 June:
	"I have asked Acting Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Smith to address the points raised in your correspondence. I have also asked him to review the case to ascertain whether the allegation of a 'cover up' should be the matter of investigation by BTP."
	Whatever the outcome of the current investigations that are still continuing, by Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and British Transport police, into the incident on 3 March, I am in no doubt that the present situation at the Medhurst Row rail crossing presents an unacceptable degree of risk, both to those crossing and to passengers on the trains involved, should there be a collision with a vehicle. This is a crossing that has no automatic gates, and no automatic warning lights when a train is approaching. Those using the crossing are totally dependent for their safety on there not being human error at the Ashford signal box, and there not being equipment failure. In life, human errors occur, and equipment failures occur. If either of those should happen, those using the crossing have only one protection: what those in the armed forces are inclined to call the mark one eyeball. That is the only protection available, and it probably saved the life of Mr. Alex Stedall on 3 March.
	The mark one eyeball has its limitations: it is not much use at night, it is not much use in fog, and it is not much use in mist. My conclusion from all the material that I have seen so far is that, as it stands, the Medhurst Row railway crossing is a fatal accident waiting to happen, possibly involving multiple fatalities. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell me what he will do to try to prevent such a tragedy occurring.

Kim Howells: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing this debate. He has raised an issue that is clearly of great concern to him and to his constituents, and which should properly be the concern of anyone who wants to see safety enhanced on and around the railways. He described for us with great clarity reports of a serious incident, which have concerned him a great deal. Were I in his place, I would do exactly the same. It has given me the opportunity to try to reassure him that we are determined to ensure that the country's rail network is operated safely, whether at the Medhurst Row crossing in Edenbridge, or in any other part of the country.
	There are more than 8,000 level crossings operated by Network Rail. Had the right hon. Gentleman not initiated the debate, I should not have known that. It is an incredible number of level crossings. Just 1,500 are public vehicular crossings, and 5,400 are private vehicular crossings. The remainder are public footpaths.
	Public crossings are found where a public right of way crosses the railway, for instance a public road or footpath. The rail operator has a legal responsibility to ensure safe operation, and Network Rail risk assessors look at all level crossings and try to provide appropriate protection, as we would expect them to. Private crossings are provided by Network Rail for authorised users only—typically, occupiers of adjacent land like the right hon. Gentleman's constituents—who need to cross the line to gain access to their property. Network Rail provides briefings for authorised users on the procedures to be followed, and users are responsible for ensuring that crossings are used safely—in particular by following the procedures advised by Network Rail, and obeying the instructions displayed in crossing signs at each location. The right hon. Gentleman helpfully described in some detail what that entails at the Medhurst Row crossing.
	Network Rail published a level crossings strategy in 2003, designed to reduce risks associated with level crossings through—among other things—effective operation and maintenance, a programme of risk assessment leading to risk reduction, and communication with users and external stakeholders to promote safe usage. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Health and Safety Executive investigates serious incidents on both public and private level crossings, and keeps the safety standards under review. It can require action to improve protective arrangements at level crossings, depending on changes in the level or frequency of risk. It works closely with Network Rail, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and the British Transport police to increase road users' awareness of the risk of misuse at level crossings. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to meet Network Rail and HSE representatives to discuss that problem.
	The Medhurst Row crossing is a private crossing restricted to authorised users, namely the occupants of four houses and a farm who need to use it to gain access to their properties. As the right hon. Gentleman said, users in vehicles must telephone the signaller at Ashford to confirm that it is safe to cross. I understand that Railtrack, as it was then—it is now Network Rail—wrote to all users in July 2000 to remind them of the procedures, and that Network Rail sent a further reminder in 2003.
	Let me deal specifically with Mr. Kennedy's complaints. These are serious allegations. I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that all the complaints made to the HSE have been thoroughly investigated by it or by Railtrack. I understand that Mr. Kennedy first raised the matter with the HSE in November 2000, complaining that the crossing was unsafe and that he and his family had been given permission to cross in front of oncoming trains. That is about as serious an allegation concerning a crossing as it is possible to make.
	There were two earlier incidents, in 1994 and 1998. Mr. Kennedy had been given permission to cross when trains had been on that section of line. Both incidents were dealt with internally by Railtrack at the time. In the case of the latter incident, disciplinary action was taken against the signaller.
	The HSE investigated Mr. Kennedy's allegations, along with Railtrack representatives, and met him on the site in January 2001. It asked Railtrack to carry out improvements to the crossing, to re-brief signallers on the correct procedures—a very important move—and to carry out spot-checks, all of which were done. The HSE wrote to Mr. Kennedy about that at that time.
	Mr. Kennedy subsequently wrote to the HSE on eight further occasions between January and June 2001, making allegations of three further incidents of permission being given to cross in front of trains. In one case, on 27 January 2001, Railtrack found that the signaller had made a mistake, and it took disciplinary action. In the other cases, investigations failed to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations, and Mr. Kennedy was informed accordingly. Nevertheless, the HSE again reviewed the working of the crossing with Railtrack on 1 June 2001. Mr. Kennedy was invited to this meeting, but did not attend. Written correspondence to Mr. Kennedy seeking his version of events was returned by Royal Mail as "being refused". Further improvements were recommended, including the installation of CCTV, which was put in place in 2002.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Kennedy's son alleged that he was given permission to cross and was confronted by a train. Network Rail held an internal investigation and the report was passed to the HSE. It shows that Network Rail considered various forms of independent evidence available to it to establish what happened. As the right hon. Gentleman told us, that included tape recordings, CCTV and train monitoring systems, as well as speaking to the staff concerned. Network Rail concluded, on the evidence available, that permission to cross the line was given after two trains that had been approaching had passed. The HSE has reviewed Network Rail's report, and I understand that it has no reason to doubt its conclusions. It has informed the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Kennedy accordingly.
	I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman met representatives of the HSE and Network Rail today to review the evidence relating to the latest incident. He has told us of doubts concerning some of the detail of the recordings that he has seen and heard. I undertake to contact Network Rail and the HSE, and to seek from them specific answers to the questions that he has raised as a result of this morning's meeting.

John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that undertaking. I am well aware that Network Rail has taken the view that Mr. Kennedy's son, Mr. Alex Stedall, made the telephone call after the train had passed. There was another train, which had gone past. I myself have seen this morning the closed circuit television videotape. It shows incontrovertible evidence, which was not denied by the Network Rail and HSE representatives present. It shows Mr. Stedall—who was identified by his father and by himself, so there is no doubt about identification—opening the gate, going on to the line, looking, going quickly back and closing the gate, and the train then going past. There is no question whatever but that Mr. Stedall saw the train approaching him. The videotape evidence shows that he went back and closed the gate, and that the train then went past.

Kim Howells: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall certainly communicate his description of what he saw on the CCTV footage, and I will ask for answers that I hope will be useful to him.
	Of course, one has always to try to place trust in the experts, and there is no doubt that the rail inspectorate has great experience in such matters. We have one of the very finest safety records in the world. Indeed, I was fortunate enough recently to visit Japan, where level crossings pose the biggest problem in terms of railways incidents. Level crossings pose difficult problems—and I am not talking about only private ones, or ones where special permissions have to be sought and granted, but public level crossings when people do idiotic things.
	I want to know exactly what happened at this incident and I will certainly try to find out for the right hon. Gentleman. I want to reassure him that the necessary measures are being taken across the country. It is important that all our colleagues understand that because most of us have level crossings in our constituencies and we need to be aware of the fact that the HSE and Network Rail are concerned to ensure that we have safe level crossings.
	I understand that further improvements to this particular level crossing using existing technology are unlikely to be cost-effective in relation to the level of risk in usage. I hate to be so utilitarian in saying that, as I am not insensitive to the risk in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us about what happened to Mr. Kennedy's son.
	I take the point, which the right hon. Gentleman has made vividly, that we are not talking about only one or two people on the level crossing who might be injured: if a vehicle is on the crossing, it could endanger the train itself. That is an important point, and we saw a terrible accident recently on the Worcester line, which resulted in deaths. That accident was the consequence of the misuse of a level crossing. There are thousands of level crossings and one wonders how much it would cost to ensure that every single one of them was protected by much safer mechanical devices and procedures than we have at the moment. We have to look further into that matter.
	I understand that the cost of installing miniature warning lights at this particular crossing has been estimated at £800,000. The right hon. Gentleman raises his eyebrows, as I did when I read that. I will certainly try to test that figure and see if it is true, but there are an awful lot of crossings up and down the country just like that one. If the cost of installing that sort of equipment at each of those crossings runs at about £800,000, one wonders how any Government or any rail company—it is a privatised railway these days—could afford to do such a thing. As I said, I will certainly test the figure for him.
	Automatic barriers would be even more costly and I fear would probably be regarded by the auditors of this place as being wholly inappropriate, given the relatively small number of households served by the particular level crossing. However, Network Rail and the HSE are aware of the new developments of stand-alone warning-light systems driven by existing track circuiting, which could be cost-effective. We will take a look at that one. Trials are planned and, if successful, it may prove to be a better solution to the problem of level crossings.
	I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman too bleak a picture in responding to the problem. There are certainly some interesting technological developments nowadays. I will examine them and I hope that we may be able to apply such solutions to such crossings. On the other hand, I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman any false hope about what will be done at this crossing, as I am not even sure that it is appropriate or whether the technology will prove to be successful on British railways.
	I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I want to reassure him that the HSE and Network Rail are committed to ensuring the safe operation of all level crossings, especially the one about which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed considerable concern. I will ask the HSE and Network Rail for their response to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised so that I can satisfy myself that the crossing does not constitute, as he put it, an accident waiting to happen.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock.